---

Gambling Act (On-course Bookmakers)

I welcome the Minister to his new post and I am sure that we all look forward to his response. So far, the debate has been very one-sided, and I will stay on the same side as everyone else. I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) on introducing the debate. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Hove (Ms Barlow), for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), as well as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). The hon. Member for Livingston began by reminding us of what happened in 1998, when the list position arrangements were changed to allow trading in seniority positions. He welcomed that, although the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has expressed serious concerns about it in earlier debates, including, most recently, on 14 March. As to which of the two is right, all that I can say is that the various constituents who have come to see me rather favour the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman. However, we have moved on and we are now debating a separate issue, which has been well rehearsed in the debate. We are discussing the nature of the trading and whether people could reasonably believe that what was being traded was something that they held in perpetuity. The Minister rightly intervened on the hon. Member for Hove to ask whether people could reasonably have expected that to be the case—a point also raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda—and it is worth looking at that question. I will therefore concentrate largely on that issue in my brief contribution and I hope that that will help the debate. As we know, the change in arrangements was introduced in December 1998. It is worth referring to clause 5 of the sales catalogue that was issued at that time, which says:"““The Buyer will be deemed to have knowledge of all matters which he could reasonably have been expected to find out given his knowledge as an Authorised Bookmaker and the exercise of due diligence.””" I would argue strongly to the Minister that responsible authorised bookmakers did do their due diligence test, but that they certainly could not have been expected to know what would happen following the introduction of the new legislation and its erroneous interpretation by the RCA. It is also important to note that the extensive conditions detailed in the catalogue consistently emphasise that the buyer is buying a title, which can be transferred only under the NJPC arrangements. Under company law, a title constitutes an asset given to the holder of that title. People therefore believed that they were buying a title, which is an asset, in perpetuity. They were further led to assume that that was the case because all the relevant documentation referred to an opportunity to buy into a prosperous new era. They therefore assumed that they had got something that would be of financial benefit to them. Underpinning every statement in the documentation was the idea of establishing a profession with stability and longevity. The issue of obtaining a title was made very clear by the NJPC, which set out four principles in its documentation. Those principles included the establishment of relativity, the affirmation of procedure, the determination of location and security of title. That is absolutely clear, but that security of title is now under threat, which is having a huge financial impact on on-course bookmakers and particularly, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough rightly said, on the colourful, smaller family-owned businesses, which are now in serious difficulty. Why has all this happened? Why are people under threat? I do not understand why they are under threat. I have not only read the Gambling Act 2005—I served on the Committee that considered it and I have looked back at the debates about it—but obtained the draft regulations relating to the relevant clauses—clauses 167, 168 and 355(1). The only relevant issue raised in the regulations relates to the five times rule, which paragraph 1(8) of part 2 makes clear will go after 31 August 2012. I do not understand, however, why that gives the RCA the right to make all the other decisions that it has made. I therefore have a few quick questions for the Minister. First, is he aware that his Department has been informed of such concerns and worries over the past three years? Is he aware that a letter was sent to his Department as a recently as eight weeks ago, but that there has still been no reply? Secondly, is what the RCA is doing in the spirit of the Act or does it run contrary to it? Is the Minister aware that the federation will have no choice but to go to the European Court of Human Rights, as the hon. Member for Reigate said? It will do that under the first protocol to the European convention on human rights, which relates to property rights. Thirdly, was the working group that was set up in the Minister’s Department to ensure the smooth running of the Act given any remit to look at the issue before us? Although concerns were raised, I think that the Minister will discover that it was given no such remit. Perhaps he can explain why. Finally, if the Minister has the opportunity, will he address an issue that has not been touched on so far? Bookmakers from other European countries, and particularly from Ireland and Australia, are involved in the issues before us, which means that there could also be EU involvement. The hon. Member for Ryedale summed things up when he said that we need a fair solution. I served on the Committee that considered the legislation, and the present situation was not intended. We therefore look to the Minister not necessarily to find a compromise—indeed, we should not be talking about compromise because the proposal was not right in the first place—but at least to acknowledge that there is a significant issue of compensation to be addressed.