---

Sports Betting

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate and I hope that he did not bet at the start of the season on Norwich to win promotion to the premier league. Sadly, it looks as if my bet on Celtic to win the Scottish premier league will not come to fruition either. Obviously, the main subject of the debate is integrity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) did, I wish to mention briefly the integrity not of certain layers or of the sports themselves, but of the Racecourse Association and those who have followed its line. Having been present in the House during Culture, Media and Sport questions on 19 January and, like my hon. Friend, having read the Racing Post of 18 March, I am convinced that the Minister shares my concerns. As some hon. Members will be aware, back in March 2007, the RCA unilaterally announced that race courses would cease to recognise on-course bookmakers' list positions. Despite hon. Members' repeated criticisms and calls for the RCA and race courses to alter their stance, two early-day motions and a Select Committee report, the RCA still has not withdrawn its announcement and race courses refuse to budge to a reasonable position. We have heard today about just one race course, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough that we need a UK solution. What is a reasonable position? It is not right of first refusal. Under that system, race courses will hold bookmakers to ransom to use their own list positions. If a bookmaker cannot pay what the race course demands, the race course will offer the same position to somebody else, leaving the bookmaker with nothing. Tenure must be tenure. There must be two-way negotiation on access charges, rather than diktat. To ensure fairness to both sides, a dispute resolution system, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is essential. I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue. As has been said, a UK-wide solution on tenure is necessary. We must protect all bookmakers, not just some. As list positions are assets conferring a priority order of pitch selection, it is also critical that new betting areas are allocated according to existing lists. It would be unfair for assets bought in good faith to be devalued. There are three main points to address: duration of tenure, a UK-wide dispute resolution system and new betting areas. The matter is fairly straightforward and should not be complicated by more incidental issues. After the working party ended, it was hoped that discussions between race courses and bookmakers would be undertaken in good faith and without interference from the RCA. As the Minister said, that has not happened. Last October, the RCA wrote to its members, effectively advising them to delay agreement, resist the continuance of tenure rights and refuse dispute resolution. Correspondingly, although race courses have had more than a year to make an offer to bookmakers, no concrete proposals have been made. For that reason, I urge scepticism about how the RCA and race courses portray the situation to the public, and note that its gambling group note from November states that""we need to terminate DCMS interest in this, thus avoiding legislation"." Frankly, that is a disgraceful position. It intends to "terminate DCMS interest" by "showing progress locally". The important distinction is between the appearance and the reality; showing progress is not making progress. I understand the Minister's frustration over this matter. I hope that his last crack at reaching a voluntary agreement by reconvening the working party produces a UK-wide solution. Should that not happen, secondary legislation will be the only option. We should put the message out that we intend to use it if there is no agreement. Thank you, Mr. O'Hara, for your indulgence in allowing me to say those few words.