Clause 8 - Exclusive licence
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
2:45 pm
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, we have tabled amendments to the same effect, although with one important distinction. We tried to separate out the three factors of the licence's period, exclusivity and renewability. I tabled separate amendments because I suspect that the Minister's response to the three different components will be different. I have opted for the course of action that might lead to at least partial success, even if it means only a partial letter to Mrs. Foster.
I shall start with the issue of exclusivity. It is not the critical one, but it probably draws most cross-party agreement. The Government are committed to the exclusivity of the licence for a period, which they say should be seven years. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath about the exclusivity ceasing after seven years, if that ultimately proves to the period. He rightly quoted the right hon. Member for Livingston who, as one would expect, described the situation precisely.
Another analogy is with the national lottery. That is basically a pool betting system, as a bigger pool means that more people bet and more people betting means a bigger pool, more prize money and a bigger jackpot. However, the Government have not suggested that we should have competition between lots of national lotteries, so I do not follow the logic which says that competitive pool betting for horse or greyhound racing would enhance the lot of the punter. As has been said repeatedly, the reverse would almost certainly be true. Pools, and therefore prizes and returns, would be much smaller.
Even more important are the Government's conclusions in their regulatory assessment, to which the hon. Member for Bath referred. Our debates are about the welfare and future of the racing industry, and when we reach part 2, we will debate the levy, the huge financial impact on the racing industry and, in effect, the survivability of many of our race courses. If, as the Government have suggested, pool betting disappears at some meetings or race courses, the viability of those courses and meetings will come into question. That is putting it mildly, as that will almost certainly mean their end. The idea of a lower Tote contribution to racing flies in the face of what we are trying to achieve in the Bill, so I am concerned by the possible end of the exclusivity.
That brings me to renewability. I have a slight difficulty, because our next debate will include my amendments on renewability. If I wax too lyrical about renewability now, there will be little point in boring the Committee again when we discuss those amendments—not that that will necessarily stop me. I shall not pursue the point at great length at this stage, not least because the Minister will undoubtedly refer to renewability when he speaks to this group of amendments. That will allow me to come back to him later with my alternative way of acting.
The seven-year licence period should be defined in the Bill. I know that that is a widespread belief, although I must confess that I am not too enthralled by the idea of seven years. Bearing in mind the huge investment that will be made in buying and developing
the Tote, I am not convinced that a longer period would not have been better. I will not quibble about the seven years, but it should be in the Bill and I do not understand the Minister's reticence in that respect. He endeavoured to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on Second Reading; indeed, he endorsed his view that seven years was right, but he still resisted putting it in the Bill. I hope the Minister will agree that it would be wise to do so, and cease his resistance now.
The Government have repeatedly said that they intend the period to be seven years, and we need a period of that length to get the commercial benefit of putting the Tote fully and squarely into the private sector and away from Government. That is needed to enable it to recoup the investment it will have to make in its own purchase. It is also critical if it is to develop and become a viable organisation and continue to pour money into racing when the exclusivity ceases, if that is how it turns out. Seven years is the minimum period in which to achieve that aim, although I am not arguing for a longer period now. However, in the debate on the next group of amendments I will argue for the principle of renewability, or, to be precise, that we should not at this stage insist on non-renewability, which is a slightly different approach.
I want the Minister to understand that I wholly support the thrust of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath; I feel chagrined that he managed to do it in such a way that it became the lead amendment in the group, but that is the way of these things. I think he is unwise to link the three points, although they are all critical.