Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill
Debate between Paul Farrelly and Philip Davies(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) who, as people have said, is an expert in these matters and did an excellent job when he was the Minister responsible for them. I agree with his comments about new clause 1, although I think he was characteristically —and perhaps unnecessarily—generous to his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), about his new clauses.
Before I go any further I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) on new clause 1, which is absolutely spot on and follows the conclusions we reached in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during pre-legislative scrutiny. His point about the clear anomaly in this area is right. It seems ridiculous that somebody can play on a tablet or remote machine three paces outside the door of a casino, but is not allowed to do so three paces inside that door. It is about time legislation in that area caught up with modern technology. We cannot allow the law to be so behind the times; some of us may be considered luddites, but the law should not exist to protect luddites in such a way.
Paul Farrelly
Before the hon. Gentleman goes on to being under-generous to the shadow Minister, does he agree that throughout this debate, the Government have yet to give a reason for why they are rejecting a provision such as new clause 1 to remove that anomaly?
Philip Davies
I agree with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right and I am sure we all look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope we can look forward to hearing her accept new clause 1. It seems that Governments often refuse to accept amendments and new clauses simply because they have been tabled by a Back Bencher rather than the Government. It would be to the Government’s credit if they were to accept that the new clause is sensible and has cross-party support and support from the Select Committee that scrutinised it. The new clause does not add a great deal of complexity to the Bill; it is fairly straightforward and would be easy to implement. When the Minister responds, I hope she will say that she has listened to the argument and realised that we should pursue this sensible measure.
Philip Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I take it from what he has said that he agrees with my amendment. The fear has been expressed, both in the Treasury’s forecast and during the debate, that the number of people gambling with unlicensed operators could increase. I therefore think it only right for the Government to present a report to the House once a year—it need not be an oral report; it could be in written form—to update us on what the Gambling Commission has been doing and how successful it has been, so that we can decide whether it is dealing properly with a problem that we all fear may arise.
Paul Farrelly
The hon. Gentleman said that the report need not be in written form, but the amendment says:
“The Secretary of State shall publish a report to Parliament”.
That implies that it should indeed be a written report. Will the hon. Gentleman provide some guidance for the Government and the Gambling Commission by saying a few words about what he expects to be its form and content?
Philip Davies
I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I actually said that the report need not be oral, and could be written. The amendment is worded as it is because otherwise there could simply be a written report with no accompanying oral statement.
I should like the Gambling Commission to explain, in its own words, exactly what actions it has taken to try to close down unlicensed operators in order to prevent people from gambling with them; to update us on how successful it has been; and to give us an idea of how big the issue remains each year. That will enable us to decide whether the legislation that we have passed has succeeded, or whether we need to revisit it. If we are to proceed with the Bill, all of us will want to ensure that people gamble only with properly licensed legal operators, and any measure that focuses the minds of the Gambling Commission and the Government on that can only be a good thing.
Paul Farrelly
Does the hon. Gentleman think it advisable for the Gambling Commission to give us an annual running commentary on its estimate of the percentage of the market that is captured by licensed operators and the percentage that is lost to unlicensed operators? That might help the Treasury to determine the amount of the necessary tax levy, which will clearly be crucial in the context of how much of the gambling market is captured by licensed operators in the future.
Philip Davies
I am not entirely sure whether an annual report constitutes a “running commentary”, but if it does, then yes, I do want a running commentary on the steps that the Gambling Commission is taking, how effective those steps are proving to be, and how big the market is. Only if we know that will we know whether the Bill has been successful or whether we need to change it in some way.
When I table an amendment, I can often understand why the Government would not accept it, but I genuinely cannot understand why they would not accept this amendment, which is modest and which goes to the heart of some of the concerns that have been expressed about the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will accept my amendment and new clause 1, but will reject the new clauses tabled by Opposition Members.
Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill
Debate between Paul Farrelly and Philip Davies(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who was an excellent Minister in the Labour Government and is an excellent man. I am not saying that just because he is one of my constituents. I genuinely mean it. I do not think he votes for me, but I have not given up hope on him just yet. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who does a superb job chairing the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and trying to bring a consensus to it, which is sometimes a challenge, but he does it with great skill.
I do not intend to divide the House on the Bill. I support its premise, but we are in a rather strange situation. The basis on which I support the Bill is not the one on which the Government are promoting it. It is the one basis on which the Government are desperate to pretend they are not introducing the Bill, even though it is clearly the case that the Bill is nothing to do with regulation; it is to do with taxation. I will deal with regulation in a moment.
We know what is behind the Bill and we do not need to guess: it is all about filling the Treasury’s coffers, although it probably will not fill them as much as the Treasury would like. The Chancellor made the objective clear in his Budget speech last year, when he said:
“One area where I am today making substantial changes is gambling duties. . . The current duty regime for remote gambling introduced by the last Government was levied on a ‘place of supply’ basis. This allowed overseas operators largely to avoid it, and much of the industry has, as a result, moved offshore. Ninety per cent. of online gambling consumed by our citizens is now supplied from outside the UK, and the remaining UK operations are under pressure to leave. This is clearly not fair—and not a sensible way to support jobs in Britain. So we intend to introduce a tax regime based on the place of consumption—where the customer is based, not the company—and, from this April, we will also introduce double taxation relief for remote gambling. These changes will create a more level playing field, and protect jobs here.” —[Official Report, 21 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 803.]
It is perfectly clear what the Government are doing—the Chancellor could not have made it any clearer, and I fully support what he said. I thought there was a great deal of sense in it and I think most people here would agree with him.
The problem is that the Chancellor made no reference in his Budget speech to the need to introduce measures to improve player protection or to better regulate the gambling industry. I do not think that was accidental. It was perfectly obvious why. The Bill has nothing to do with regulating the gambling industry or improving player protection.
The Select Committee enjoyed hearing from the chief executive of the Gambling Commission and from the permanent secretary, struggling to think of any reasons why the current regime needed improving from a player protection perspective. I was slightly embarrassed for them. They were in a difficult position. They had come to argue the indefensible—that the Bill was all about regulation. When they were pressed to identify the issues that had caused all the problems and require new legislation, we did not get anything from them. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) made the point about Full Tilt. If anybody can give an extensive list of all the problems that have been created by the current system of regulation, I would be very pleased to hear it, as would the other members of the Select Committee, I am sure. We did not hear much of it from the chief executive or from the permanent secretary.
Paul Farrelly
One of the main problems is the flight offshore. The hon. Gentleman referred to the 2012 Budget statement and the elimination of double taxation. Does he agree that that is extremely important if we are to encourage British firms based overseas to relocate here, because taxing their profits in Britain and elsewhere would make them uncompetitive?
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I intend to talk about taxation more widely a little later, because it plays a crucial role.
My understanding—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that the Bill is all about regulation because that is what is needed to satisfy the European Union and make it fit within its rules. Were the Government to admit that it is all about taxation, the European Union would be all over it like a rash and would rule that it is illegal because it interferes with tax competition and will upset other parts of the EU. That is why the Government have been desperately trying to pretend that the Bill is all about regulation, even though we know that it is not.
I am sure we all agree with what the Chancellor said in his Budget statement—I certainly do—but I am not entirely sure that it was particularly helpful to the Government more widely or to the Minister in this instance. The Chancellor talked about protecting jobs here, and I am sure that he had in mind the company that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme represents, bet365. It should be commended not only for ensuring that it protects all the jobs in his area, but for the commitment it gives to the area more generally, because it sponsors the local football club and is involved in the local community. We should all congratulate bet365 on what it has done.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon made clear, bet365’s representatives told the Select Committee in evidence that the company would be under pressure to leave if the current situation continued for much longer. Furthermore, they said that it was only really here because it was a privately owned company. They conceded that it would almost certainly have had to go offshore if it was a public limited company. The fact that it is a private company is what has allowed it to stay. Therefore, I do not necessarily think that we should criticise those that have gone offshore, because it was an inevitable consequence of the tax system and it would be naive to think otherwise.
I would prefer to try to allow bet365 to stay here, which of course we want, but it would be nice if our ambitions were a little grander. I would like to see some of the companies that are already offshore return to the UK, which is why the tax rate is so important. If we introduce a 15% tax rate, there is no chance of any of those firms returning. I encourage the Minister to encourage her Treasury colleagues to indulge in some negotiations with the betting companies to see what agreement can be reached, because I would much prefer us to set a tax rate that enabled them to come back or to bring back some of their operations. That would also mean an awful lot of jobs coming back here. That would be a much more sensible way forward, rather than seeing it as an immediate cash cow.
Philip Davies
I very much agree, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend’s idleness is not to be commended. I will bear that in mind in future and give priority to those who can be bothered to stand up when intervening.
The 95% figure is my hypothesis. Nobody here appears to disagree with it. If the Gambling Commission wants to supply us with information following the debate to gainsay that, I will be happy to read it, but I do not believe that anybody is seriously arguing that at least 95% of gambling takes place with people who are properly licensed and registered. The Government seem to have got themselves into a bit of a muddle. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee, the Government have not made it clear what they think is currently bet with illegal sites, but they have made a very good stab at guessing what will be bet with illegal sites after this Bill has come to fruition. The Treasury, which obviously has pound signs in its eyes as it sees the Bill progressing through Parliament, has already made its forecasts for the revenue it expects to get from it. The assessment of remote gambling taxation in its 2012 Budget policy costings suggests that if a place-of-consumption tax is imposed at a 15% rate, about 20% of the UK market will be unlicensed, unregulated and therefore not paying tax.
Paul Farrelly
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Treasury really knows what it is talking about in making that stab in the dark, or does it perhaps not wish to over-egg expectations of the revenue it is going to raise, so that if it ends up at 95% it will have exceeded expectations?
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman may have no faith in the Treasury. I am happy to go along with the Office for Budget Responsibility, which wants to look at this to see what revenue can be expected. In fact, I am happy to look at anybody’s genuine predictions.
This is a Government Bill that is supposed to be about increasing regulation and player protection. However, the Government themselves admit in their own Treasury forecast that it will result in our moving from a situation where probably fewer than 5% of people are betting with unlicensed and unregulated sites to one where about 20% of people are likely to be betting in that way. Does that sound like a sensible strategy for a Government who are introducing a Bill to improve player protection and the regulation of the gambling industry? It is complete nonsense and it is there for all to see. This has nothing to do with regulation or player protection; it is about taxation and tax rates, as the Treasury made abundantly clear in its forecast.