|
Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in
schedule 1, page 26, line 2, leave out 'seven' and insert 'twenty-eight.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 40, in
schedule 1, page 26, line 15, leave out 'seven' and insert 'twenty-eight'.
Mr. Paice: The short amendments in this group have the same import and relate to the same portion of the schedule as amendment No. 47 did. The amendment concerns the time scale in which the person who operates a pool betting business will send the supervising accountant a statement of the accounts of that business for any particular month. The Bill gives only a seven-day notice for both submission and resubmission of the accounts, if that proves necessary. I am certainly not a person who likes delays, but I think that seven days is a very short time and have tabled amendments to make it 28 days. The Minister may have an alternative viewpoint but in all reasonableness seven days is a very short time in which
Column Number: 60
to table those accounts. From reading the clause, it strikes me—I may have misunderstood—that if at any time the supervisory accountant requested accounts, they must be provided in seven days. My amendment suggests that seven days be replaced by 28 days, which is a more reasonable period.
Mr. Page: Mine will be a very short intervention. I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire with a logical argument. The Tote is not a small business. It is not a corner shop but a relatively large organisation. The idea that one could cobble together accurate figures, if required, in seven days is an impossible imposition. The clause does not even say seven working days, so if the request was received on a Friday and there was a bank holiday, there would be only three days in which to produce the figures.
It is a simple matter of logic. Anyone with any business experience would require more than seven days to comply with the regulations to make sure that the figures are presented correctly. I am sure that the Minister will see the eminent logic of the amendments and be only too happy to accept them.
Mr. Caborn: Based on that powerful contribution, amendments Nos. 39 and 40 increase the time allowed by pool operators to submit their pool accounts for inspection by supervising accountants. The period of seven days specified in the Bill is based on the regime that operates, as already indicated, for greyhound pools and we see no reason to diverge from that. However, I recognise that horse racing and dog pools differ. We keep hearing about little pools, but are talking about dog pools not little pools.
Mr. Page: Puddles.
Mr. Caborn: Pools. If information comes to light that shows that horse race pools accounts take longer to prepare than greyhound pools accounts, we will look again at the time scale. In the meantime, I ask the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw the amendment. We will agree to consider it on the basis of any further information that we are given.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful for the Minister's response. Surprise comes in many forms and I am delighted at his emollient words. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11
Preparatory work by the Tote
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Caborn: The clause provides the statutory authority for the necessary planning and preparatory work to take place for the Tote's sale. It extends the powers of the Tote's board so that it may do anything
Column Number: 61
that it or the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient in connection with the sale. That will include the ability to provide information, support and assistance to the racing trust. Similarly, it gives the Secretary of State power to direct the Tote to undertake such work or to provide information or assistance in connection with it. That will ensure that all the required preparatory work done in connection with the sale can be undertaken. It is, therefore, key to the smooth passage of the sale as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Caborn: The clause deals with the interpretation of terms and expression used in this part of the Bill. It clarifies what is meant by Crown ownership of shares and provides a definition of securities modeled on the Companies Act. It also provides for terms that are defined in the Gaming Act 1968, Companies Act 1985 and the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to have the same meaning in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Caborn: Schedule 2 makes a number of consequential amendments to other Acts. The clause merely allows the amendments made in that schedule to have effect.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
4.15 pm
Schedule 2
Sale of the Tote: consequential amendments
Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in
schedule 2, page 29, line 31, at end insert—
17A The Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 shall be amended as follows.
17B In section 4 (Other betting)—
(a) While the exclusive licence has effect substitute the following subsections (1) and (2) for the existing subsections (1) and (2)—
Column Number: 62
''(1) General betting duty shall be charged on a bet made by way of pool betting by means of facilities provided by people who are authorised under section 8(4)(a) of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004.
(2) General betting duty shall be charged on a bet made by way of pool betting by means of facilities provided by the successor company (as defined in section 2(2) of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004).''
(b) Once the exclusive licence no longer has effect subsections (i) and (ii) shall cease to have effect.'.
The amendment was put forward by the Tote's lawyers, who advise me that although section 4 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 refers to the horse race totalisator board and to the question of general betting duty, they seem to have been omitted from the consequential amendments in schedule 2. The amendment acknowledges the fact that while the exclusive licence is in effect, general betting duty will continue to be charged in the current manner. When the exclusive licence ceases to have effect, the provisions of section 4 of the 1981 Act will cease to have effect also. As I said, the amendment was recommended by the lawyers acting on behalf of the Tote; I cannot add to that.
Mr. Caborn: It seems that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I are both reading from brief this afternoon. The amendment would allow the Tote's successor to pay a general betting duty on its full betting operation rather than pool betting duty. As the hon. Gentleman knows, taxation is a matter for my colleagues in the Treasury, who will of course consider the issue as part of the Budget and Finance Bill process. Naturally, if proposals to that effect are brought forward in a future Finance Bill, the House will have the chance to debate them then. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Paice: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 14
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Caborn: The clause deals with the extent of part 1 of the Bill, and it excludes Northern Ireland from the scope of the provision allowing for the sale of the Tote. Northern Ireland racecourses operate their own pools under a separate system of regulation, and the Tote does not run betting offices there.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Four o'clock till Thursday 22 January at half-past Nine o'clock.
Column Number: 63
The following Members attended the Committee:
Sayeed, Mr. Jonathan (Chairman)
Caborn, Mr.
Chapman, Mr. Ben
Foster, Mr. Don
Grogan, Mr.
Hawkins, Mr.
Kemp, Mr.
Mahmood, Mr.
Column Number: 64
Mountford, Kali
Page, Mr.
Paice, Mr.
Reed, Mr.
Rosindell, Mr.
Sanders, Mr.
Tami, Mark
White, Brian
|
