LICENCES TO ACCEPT BETS AT BOOKMAKERS' PRICES (Hansard, 7 August 1972)

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Speaker
It will be convenient also to discuss new Clause 36—"Copyright fees".

§ Mr. Lewis
The new Clauses are similar. I am glad that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) has made his speech and gone because when he keeps intervening it takes up time, and I do not want to be long because I wish the proceedings to be completed as soon as possible.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I do not explain the Clause at length, but he has read it. It is, in fact, self-explanatory. Its purpose is to make provision for the Totalisator Board to make bets at bookmakers' prices on licence.

§ Mr. Carlisle
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on the speed with which he moved the new Clause. I promise him that if he maintains his performance during the evening I shall not perhaps 1394 make the unkind remarks which I was minded to make about him.
The purpose of the new Clause is to provide, in effect, that the tote should have to pay a fee for what is called in it "bookmakers' prices", just as the bookmakers pay a fee for settling odds at tote prices. However, I think that the Clause is based on a misunderstanding of the situation. There is no copyright in any form of bookmakers' prices, as the hon. Gentleman refers to it. There is, of course, a copyright provided by Statute on the totalisator prices, and it is for that copyright that the bookmakers pay a fee for the use of totalisator prices.
I am not going to criticise the wording of the hon. Gentleman's new Clause but by "bookmakers' prices" he presumably means either the board prices or the starting prices. As for the board prices, every individual bookmaker can make his own book, and, of course, he works out his own odds which he chooses to give on the basis of the cash being paid into his book. Therefore, no other bookmaker or body is likely to pay out on one board price as such, and even if he did there would be no basis for paying a fee for that service, since it might be that on the cash flow into his business he would make a loss if he paid out a price similar to that offered by another bookmaker.
As for starting prices, starting prices are merely struck by the racing correspondents of certain of the leading racing papers, taking the mean of the various prices being offered by the board and various of the leading bookmakers on the course, and the starting price is then that which is paid out by the bookmakers who are offering the odds and taking bets at starting prices.
There is absolutely no copyright attached to that starting price. Many of the smaller bookmakers who had no part in creating the starting price nevertheless take bets at the starting price and pay no charge for that service. There is no cost involved in assessing what the starting price is.
Therefore, it would be completely inappropriate that the Totalisator should be asked to pay a fee for taking bets at odds which other bookmakers can take free of charge. I think that new Clause 4, if I may say so, starts off on a false assumption as to the distinction between the 1395 totalisator prices and the way they are arrived at and the way starting prices are arrived at.
As to new Clause 36, until recently the copyright fee paid by the bookmaker was paid to the Levy Board and not the Totalisator Board. I understand that this was stopped, and a sum instead was paid to the Totalisator Board, and the previous arrangement came to an end by mutual agreement between the two boards, the procedure being now that the bookmakers tell the totalisator which category, for levy purposes, they are in and the totalisator collects directly from them and checks with the Levy Board that the category quoted is correct. I am advised that the Levy Board is not anxious to resume the rôle of agent for the totalisator and the collection of fees. I understand that there would be no advantage either for the totalisator or the bookmakers if this were to be so, and I think that as the previous arrangement was stopped by mutual consent it would be better to retain the present position.
I understand the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's new Clause but, as I say, in fact there is nothing, without the new Clause, which would prevent the Levy Board from taking over the collection of the copyright fee. I understand that it is unlikely that it would.