I have made it clear that the industry has made various commitments, and I want it to get on with what it has said it will do. There are issues and complexities with the one-stop-shop method of self-exclusion. I will keep it under review and if I am not satisfied within a reasonable period that the Government are not doing everything we should be doing, I will look at it again.
2.30 pm
I thank hon. Members for their suggestions about dormant betting accounts in new clause 7. I have noted the strength of feeling both today and in earlier debates, especially the comments of the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) about the opportunities that might be afforded to grass-roots sports, and I will take those comments into account when considering my right hon. Friend’s report at the appropriate time. For the reasons I have given, I do not think that the time is right. We want the Bill to go through first. I am not prepared to accept the new clause.
I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South for highlighting the subject of gambling advertising in new clause 9. The Government acknowledge the growth of gambling advertising since 2007, following the introduction of greater freedoms. As I made clear in Committee, I am already examining what impact that might be having on the licensing objectives of the Gambling Act 2005 and whether the current arrangements, including the 9 pm watershed, remain adequate.
The research that I mentioned in Committee, which was published by Ofcom last week, is an important step in clarifying the extent to which advertising has grown and where that growth has been concentrated. It also reveals the extent to which children and adults are exposed to gambling advertising. The research also shows that, while advertising has increased, the scheduling restrictions have been effective in limiting the exposure of children to gambling advertising, and that the vast majority of sports betting advertising is after the watershed.
While I find it reassuring that the scheduling restrictions have limited the exposure of children to gambling advertising, the Government continue to pay close attention to developments in the gambling advertising market and are working closely with Ofcom, the Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority. The Secretary of State and I met last month with my officials and several of those organisations to discuss the situation.
I can assure hon. Members that the Government take the issue very seriously indeed and are already working to assess the adequacy of the current arrangements. For this reason, there is no need to accept new clause 9, but I will ensure that Parliament is kept informed of our assessment of the impact of gambling advertising and,
should I uncover evidence in the course of this work that suggests that advertising codes no longer provide effective protections, I will not hesitate to act.
Last but not least, new clauses 10 and 11 would extend liability to pay the horserace betting levy to offshore bookmakers who hold a remote gambling operating licence from the Gambling Commission. I have made my commitment to consider levy reform abundantly clear, but let me repeat yet again that I want to take the opportunity—the hon. Member for Bradford South used the word “opportunity”—that has been created by the financial stability of the four-year voluntary arrangement to take a proper look at levy reform and consult widely on the sustainable, enforceable and legally sound options that emerge. We must look beyond extending a system that is agreed to be out of date and consult properly before any measures are put in place.
I am resisting the new clauses for two principal reasons. First, I do not believe that we should assume that genuine levy reform lies in merely extending the existing levy scheme. No one has disputed the view that it no longer reflects the modern betting and racing industries. The new clauses would not achieve genuine levy reform; they would merely extend the current system. Secondly, as I have said previously, any extension of the levy to offshore bookmakers as a result of the new clauses would require EU Commission approval because the levy is a state aid scheme. I will not implement the proposals, for which we do not have EU approval in respect of state aid. Nor am I convinced that we should seek EU approval for an extension of the current levy when we do not know that it will satisfy the need for proper reform. I am not prepared to act in a way that could jeopardise the stability provided by the recent voluntary arrangement.
I have also been urged to take a power to extend the levy at a future point, but that assumes that all that we might wish to do is extend the existing system, and that would not be genuine levy reform. Even if we took such a power, we could find that it was too narrowly scoped to enable us to achieve what we wanted—for example, to meet the EC requirements for any reform scheme to be state aid compliant.