---

Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Totalisator Board) Order 2007

I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord James, who has given me a precursor of what he may say on the three orders that we will debate in a week or so, although it may not be necessary for him to say it because he has already expressed his criticism of the orders. The orders have been considered in the Commons, and we will of course consider them in Committee at the appropriate time, but I understand the noble Lord’s reservations about them, as well as his point that they should be taken into account with regard to the levy because they affect the bookmakers’ income. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has indicated, the Government want out of this situation, which is the objective behind the Gaming Act and is the end to which all have been working. The Government intrude only when they are forced to make a contribution because there is no agreement between the parties. This is a somewhat invidious position which falls foul of the Government’s intention to allow as much freedom in the market as possible, consistent with good behaviour so far as the ordinary citizen is concerned. Given that, the Government come in as the regulator only when they are obliged to do so. It is an odd form of regulation when the Government act as arbiter when the two sides do not reach agreement. A situation we have become involved in recently—and the sooner we are shot of it, the better—is that of the hopes expressed on the changes being put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, has been somewhat unfair in saying that the Government should have foreseen these difficulties. Everyone expected both the Government’s position and the general situation to be upheld in Europe, and it came as something of a surprise when the bookmaker won on the issue of information. From time to time these things happen, and they put a spoke in the best-oiled wheel. On this occasion, we have been obliged to stop the process and continue with the levy until we can put a new funding position in place. While the Government would have wished it differently, we are doing the best we can. We want the racing and betting industries to run their own affairs. It is not desirable for us to become involved in disputes, so as soon as something viable is produced, the Government will be out of the frame. The problem is that the arrival of the new TV service has complicated matters by changing the relationship with one of the two contending parties. This has led to difficulties. It is something that happens in commercial life and the Government have no wish to comment on the situation except to say that we have our clear objective: as soon as there is a stable commercial alternative, the levy will come to an end. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, was worried about whether the Government had ownership of the Tote. I can confirm that the Crown owns the Tote and I understand that that has been the position since 1928. We have been proceeding on that basis and I am slightly concerned that the issue has arisen at all. However, I can do nothing other than reassure him on the point. In response to the question put about when the Tote is going to be sold, my answer is: as soon as possible. Offers are currently being considered and we are in discussions with a consortium over a number of detailed issues. The noble Lord asked me about the market value. That is commercially sensitive information at this stage, so I am not prepared to release the figure. He also asked me about the cost to the taxpayer. We think that we have costs of something in the order of £2 million in connection with the sale of the Tote, a sum that will not look out of keeping with the eventual sale of the Tote and the inevitable costs associated with such a transfer. The noble Lord can rest assured that we do want to see the sale take place as rapidly as possible, but it depends on the successful bid being mobilised. The noble Lord will be all too well aware of why there have been some difficulties over this. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised some points that he wanted the Government to take note of. I have done so. He has an ally in the noble Lord, Lord James, in terms of anxiety about certain aspects of the additional facilities in bookmakers. I am grateful that my noble friend Lord McIntosh is here; he made it very clear that at times trade-offs must be effected with regard to machines in betting shops. We are mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord James, said, and of his dire warnings that when the relevant regulations come before the Grand Committee he is likely to be present. We shall take note of his comments and I shall do my best, having been forewarned, to be properly armed. I look upon that with obvious dread in light of his tirade today. I can only say that I hope that he will save his final position until the appropriate orders are considered and that he will give a fair wind to the orders that we are considering today. I do not think that any noble Lord has expressed concern about the third order so I shall not comment on that. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for having identified key issues. The Government would of course have preferred not to have been in this position; the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is here and could testify to that effect if I asked him to do so. We had hoped that we would have seen by September of this year a successful conclusion on two of these fronts; unfortunately, we have not done so through force of circumstance. As a result, the orders are needed to effect the necessary extension. Make no bones about it: the Government’s intent is to follow the Gambling Act 2005 provisions in this regard and in due course they will go live. In at least one circumstance, we look forward to a very early conclusion of negotiations and to progress. On Question, Motion agreed to.