---

Sports Betting

It is a pleasure to work under your tutelage today, Mr. O'Hara, and to participate in this important debate, which has been entertaining, educational and informative. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to the many questions that have been asked about this industry, and it is worth echoing some of the comments that have been made. We can be very proud of the sport offering that the UK provides and the general level of integrity that we have. If we glance over our shoulders at some other places around the world, we see that corruption is rife, so we can hold our heads up and be proud of where we are today. That should not mean that we are complacent, however, which is exactly why we are here today debating this subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate and commiserate with him about where his football team are going, although he probably does not want to hear that again. If it is any consolation, should they have the misfortune of going down another division, I shall be delighted to meet him in the directors' box when they come to play AFC Bournemouth in the second division, but I am sure that that will not happen. The hon. Gentleman stressed the importance of sharing knowledge and of the communications required to ensure that the governing bodies can do their work and the Gambling Commission can have an overview. It is also important that the customer is aware that we have a transparent and fair system so that people will want to place bets in the first place. What has changed the situation from that of 15 or 20 years ago is the advent of the internet, which has provided a new dimension in which sports betting can take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) stressed the importance of establishing who is responsible for match fixing and who should be penalised if any match fixing takes place. Whether it should be the responsibility of the governing body or the individuals who participate in a team or act on their own is an interesting question. As my hon. Friend said, we should not forget the symbiotic relationship between bookmakers and sports. They need each other and we need both of them to ensure that the industry as a whole continues. We should never forget that. There are those who frown upon gambling as a whole, but in the correct, regulated environment, gambling can be seen as fun and a form of entertainment. When it slips over into being a short, fast form of investment, there should be processes in place to isolate and help those individuals who use it to try to make money, rather than as a form of fun and entertainment. That is where other responsibilities need to kick in. The hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) mentioned the enjoyment of sports betting. It was a pleasure to meet him up in Thirsk on the weekend—perhaps I should confess, or make a declaration about that. I am not a betting man, but I have been introduced to this wonderful environment thanks to the portfolio for which I am now responsible, and I have to say that the event to which I was invited on the weekend, which the Minister also attended, was a wonderful evening of entertainment. I congratulate the Yorkshire race courses on that operation. The wonderful sense of community at that event was noticeable, and people came not simply to place a bet, but to enjoy themselves. It was very much part of the fabric of the community there, which is exactly what we should be moving towards. We do not want people to feel that they cannot place a bet because they are worried that the outcome is preconceived or that a jockey will inadvertently throw himself from his horse at the last hurdle. Such things have happened, but I am glad to say that they do not happen regularly. Long may that continue. The hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough mentioned the on-course bookmakers dispute. That issue wanders slightly away from the title of the debate, but I hope that the Minister will not use that as an excuse not to comment on it, because it is a concern. The dispute has been rumbling on for some time and is one of the three big issues of horse racing, along with the future of the Tote—clearly, there needs to be some security regarding what will happen to it—and the levy. I make a personal request to the Minister to try to solve these issues because I really do not want to have to deal with them if I take over his portfolio after a general election. I will be very grateful if he works hard on them in the next 12 months. The point about the on-course bookmakers dispute made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough is important because the dispute is the Government's responsibility. There is a dispute purely because of a legislative cock-up in the Gambling Act 2005, which did not understand the legacy that on-course bookmakers had and their intellectual property rights, as it were. Nor did it fully understand their relationship with the race course, which is so important. On the Gambling Commission and its relationship with the governing bodies, the objective must be to keep gambling fair and open, and to keep crime out of gambling. One question that has been asked several times, including by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), is, can the Gambling Commission do its job? He mentioned the mystery shopping exercise, which is where the commission is supposed to zip around the internet, posing as an individual or whoever, to catch out internet companies. We do not see enough of those results coming through, and we do not see scrutiny on the level required to ensure that standards remain high. The hon. Member for Norwich, North, who opened the debate, also raised an interesting issue about the types of bet that someone can now place. I agree with him. This is my personal view: I have concerns about whether someone should be able to bet on how many players come out to play wearing spectacles or place a bet on an outcome when the event is yet to conclude—for example, what the score will be three quarters of the way through a match. I do not have the answers, but I think that many people do in that, at the end of the day, it is up to the individual to decide whether they place a bet. It opens up the possibility of types of corruption when someone knows that they can create, or design, a situation and then make up, or compensate, for it—for example, in relation to who scores the first goal in a match, that outcome might not affect the final result. I have concerns about interference with outcomes when that might not impact on the final result.