---

Sports Betting

I agree with my hon. Friend to some extent, but that is no excuse for not trying to root it out completely. I am trying to stop the syndicates and others involved in illegal acts as they emerge. They may be small in number, but they cause a lot of disruption for little effort, and we have to stamp it out. If we ever lose the belief that sport has integrity, we will lose the public. We must ensure that that does not happen, but one event could be enough. Since the previous debate, the Minister has said that betting corruption is one of the major issues that threaten sport today. I welcome that statement. He said that he wants to ensure that everything is done to stamp it out. He wants to ensure that""no stone is left unturned in the fight against corruption in sport."" He has gone on—bravely so—to create a taskforce on betting corruption in sport. We will hear later who its members might be, and how it might work. The Gambling Commission published a policy paper on betting integrity in March 2009, in which it went into detail on subjects that include information sharing, specific bets, terms and conditions, investigation and prosecution. I hope that the House will consider that paper. Betfair, the online gambling company, has launched a legal action against the Dutch Government, who have urged Dutch banks to block transactions to online gambling companies. Legal activity is developing on that subject. The Gambling Commission's policy called for better information sharing between sports governing bodies and the industry, to scrutinise and investigate betting patterns. That is a firm policy aim. However, the commission believes that that should become a non-legislative agreement. There may be some argument about whether that sort of path is tough enough, but further data sharing is to be welcomed. Sports' governing bodies do not know the extent of bets on their sports, and they therefore do not know how to assess whether their sport is at a higher or lower risk from match fixing. We welcome such contact. The commission is engaging with sports governing bodies on their rules about who may bet and what sanctions can be used against players involved in betting corruption. The Professional Players Federation has criticised sports' governing bodies for not educating players well enough on the consequences of foul actions that could completely spoil the sport. That needs to be well thought through, and we must use plain language—the Alex Ferguson sort—on the consequences if one is caught acting in that way. The commission can restrict betting types, but, in general, it does not want to tighten the rules. A huge diversity of bets is now available to the market; that is of concern. According to a Salford university academic paper entitled, "Risk to the Integrity of Sport from Betting Corruption", novelty bets are creating the biggest problem or, at least, run the highest risk. For example, bets can be placed on how many cricket players will come on to the pitch at 11.30 am wearing hats or black spectacles. We might consider that trivial, but if it is fun and people want to do it, I guess that it should be allowed. However, we must handle the situation, because it is open to deviant behaviour in terms of where the bets go, who puts them on and so on. The commission is considering employment terms when bets are made. An agreement should be reached, when a bet is placed, that there is no conflict of interest with the individual. For example, if they are a professional player or coach, they should not be allowed to bet on their team. Through section 42 of the 2005 Act, the commission can investigate suspicious betting patterns, although it is ultimately up to the police to investigate and bring prosecutions. According to the commission, the best way to deal with any prospect of match fixing is through sports governing bodies, but some confusion surrounds that. When should the commission initiate and close an investigation? When should governing bodies start and close theirs, and initiate disciplinary procedures? Some people feel that the Accrington-Bury thing was extended because of confusion about the different stages of the investigation. Will the Minister expand on that? Betfair has a model for information sharing with sports governing agencies and their investigative programmes, but it does not always know the criteria for reporting suspicious bets. I learnt about the suspicious bet that started this debate from a newspaper, although I shall not name it, because it is not that friendly to us at the moment—it will get no more publicity here today. People in the media said to me, "You see, it was a Norwich match"; they know that I am—yes, I still am—fanatical about Norwich. It was difficult to get this debate moving, however: we tried to ask questions in the House, but we were not allowed to name the two teams; but then the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) managed to name them in a question—and so it went on. We need guidelines on industry standard practice to inform sports governing bodies on how decisions are made to follow up suspicious betting behaviour. The commission's intelligence unit, which I have met, is severely limited. It is not big enough. It needs to be sharper and to be able to investigate all sports and markets, to interact with different sports and to have greater jurisdiction, so that it can investigate these betting patterns and bring successful charges. An organisation can always be judged by the number of charges that it brings. I have already asked a question about that. Too few cases are being carried through to the end. There are some, but others are dropped, including the one on the Norwich-Derby game, because the evidence cannot be obtained. The Salford university study identified the billions of pounds entering the betting industry—it went from £7 billion, in 2001, to £38 billion, in 2008—which, it says, increases""the potential for corruption in the absence of appropriate action by sports governing bodies, regulators and government to address the new threats"." There is an appetite for moving forward. The Asian market presents us with real problems. I am told that the premier league is the best football league in the world—I am not sure whether that is accurate, but we would probably all agree with it. It attracts more than $500 million in bets each weekend in the Asian betting market. That is big bucks and presents considerable opportunities for people to be tempted down funny pathways. I mentioned that people can place bets on spectacles and hats worn on a pitch. A tennis player could win a first set, but throw the second and third and get beaten. It is quite possible for a second seed to look good and be playing well, but be beaten by the 487th ranked player. Of course, that could happen legitimately—it is what sport is all about—but, at the end of the day, if a match goes a certain way, a suspicious betting pattern might indicate that the match was thrown, that somebody did not play hard enough or that something was set up. We need to keep tabs on these betting markets across the world and on the size of the sums being bet. I am pleased that some European countries are starting to take an interest. Often, in debates on Europe—on copyright, for example—people will dismiss an argument saying, "We can't get all the other European countries to engage in this." The taskforce gives us an opportunity to do that on this occasion. UEFA—on the football side—the Jockey Club and other groups could sit on the taskforce and play a part. It could be a wide taskforce with sub-committees and so on. However, as long as it is independent and sets its own terms and conditions, it will be acceptable to the public. We need to fund education programmes. The all-party football group has produced a sterling report on what needs to be done in British football. For example, as the Minister has said, the four top clubs have all the money and resources. How can we devolve some of that down to the minor leagues and other groups? Delia Smith said that the demise of Norwich into a lower league was all about money. We have not got enough to buy the players. At all stages—including from youth—skills gravitate up to the highest level. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) and I visited Cambridge United and saw its youth policy. It has some smart young people dedicated to playing football, but no money comes down to them, because they are not in the full league. Compared with other clubs, Cambridge United needs about £200,000 a year to help its youth academy.