---

Sports Betting

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I submit that a sports levy would do nothing to address that problem; it would make it worse. It is also important that much of the corruption in sport is to do with illegal betting markets in any case, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, North for pointing that out. Therefore, charging a levy to the licensed market, which is doing its bit to stamp out corruption, is not only perverse but pointless, because it would not stop the corruption in illegal markets. For example, the Hansie Cronje case—he was captain of South Africa—mainly involved Indian bookmakers, and the Charlton versus Liverpool match case in 1999 involved Malaysian syndicates. Charging a levy on British-based bookmakers would make absolutely no difference to such alleged cases of corruption. It is the sports bodies' responsibility to clear up their sports. In fact, it has been suggested to me by a number of bookmakers and exchanges that asking bookmakers to pay for integrity services would be akin to asking Boots the chemist to pay for drugs testing for sportsmen, which would clearly be a complete nonsense. It would also be unfair to suggest that bookmakers make no contribution to sport: they actually make a massive contribution. We should not underestimate the extent to which bookmakers promote sports by offering odds on them—I would have no interest in some sports if I had not placed a bet on them. Additionally, bookmakers are among the largest sponsors of some sports, including many of those that have so-called corrupt matches. For example, snooker has come under a lot of scrutiny in recent years—when I was a bookmaker, our family business was affected by a dodgy match involving a chap called Silvino Francisco—and yet Betfred was one of the biggest sponsors of the recent world snooker championships. Bookmakers are putting their hands in their pockets and providing money to sports. We would be in dangerous territory if we claimed that British bookmakers and the British betting industry in some way encourage corruption in sport. We are trying, as the Minister is, to help the betting industry to access some of the European and American markets. What are the chances of our businesses accessing those markets if we send the message that our betting industry is involved in encouraging corruption in sport? It would kill their chances before they had even started. What lies behind the idea of a sports levy is that sporting bodies see it as a way of getting some extra money from the gambling industry. In effect, they want a share of the profits that bookmakers make from betting on those sports, which I reject entirely: it would be like bookmakers demanding money from tipsters because they make money from the odds being laid on racing and other sports, which would be a complete nonsense. On the Minister's proposed expert panel, I support his case that the Gambling Commission is not particularly well equipped to deal with such matters. My submission to him is that the commission's biggest fault is that it knows nothing about gambling. Setting up an expert panel that bypasses the commission would certainly be welcome. The commission should be avoided wherever possible in anything to do with gambling, because it does not have the industry's capability and understanding. I shall draw my remarks to a close because others wish to speak. I hope the Minister makes it clear when he speaks that he totally rejects the idea of a sports levy.