Orders of the Day — Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill

House of Commons, 14 October 2004.

Clause 10 — Control when no exclusive licence

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was almost not in my place just now. That will serve me right for believing the Whips when they told me that there would be three Divisions, not two. I would also like to apologise for the absence of the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who has guided the Bill through its many stages. He cannot be with us today as he has ministerial duties elsewhere, but he sends his apologies to the House and has left me to deal with this last stage of the Bill.

I propose that the House accept this amendment that was made to the Bill in the House of Lords. In the original draft of the Bill, provision was made for point-to-point racing to be made exempt from regulatory requirements. During the discussions on the Bill in another place, concern was expressed that those provisions were not generous enough, and that the original maximum of four days proposed by the Government risked bringing a number of point-to-point races within the regulatory structures.

The Lords amendment that we are now considering reflects the Government's positive response to representations. The Government wished to avoid such an unnecessary regulatory imposition, and accordingly tabled an amendment to raise the maximum exemption to seven days of racing. Representatives of point-to-point organisations have welcomed the amendment, as I do now. I hope that the House will accept it.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Before I comment on the amendment before us, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Members on both sides of both Houses who have worked so hard to scrutinise the Bill. Although we are considering only a few amendments today, the important debates that have taken place have played their part in ensuring that the Government are aware of the concerns of racing. In a Bill that frequently requires Parliament to trust the Government to keep their word, it is important to get commitments clearly on the record, if not always in the Bill.

I would like to pay particular tribute to the dedication and hard work of my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who have brought their considerable experience, knowledge and passion for racing and sport to the Committee. I believe that the debates were the stronger for that. I should also like to pay tribute to Lord Moynihan in the other place, who was ably assisted by the noble Lord Luke. He clearly did a first-class job, and the Bill is the stronger for it. The British Paralympic Association has particular reason to be grateful, as we shall hear later.

I should highlight the fact that we are considering Lords amendment No. 1 entirely due to the foresight of my colleague Viscount Ullswater, who has ensured that the interests of point-to-point racing have not been forgotten. Currently, the Tote does not run pool betting at point-to-point races. However, it has been prepared to grant authority to the secretaries of the various point-to-point committees to run their own pool-betting operations for a nominal fee. In 2003, 82 point-to-point fixtures ran their own Tote.

Clause 10(1) amends the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 by substituting a new section 4. Under the Bill as drafted, the new section 4(4) allowed for a point-to-point exemption certificate to be applied for from the Gaming Board. However, that application had to specify a maximum number of days, not exceeding four, on which horse racing could be carried out. In the other place, Viscount Ullswater rightly pointed out that two point-to-point courses, Garthorpe and Larkhill, were to hold more than four meets in 2004.

I welcome the Government's decision to look again at this provision. On Report, the Government tabled the amendment that we see before us today, which changes the limit from four to seven. I acknowledge that the amendment represents a step forward by the Government in protecting point-to-point racing. I am interested, however, in understanding exactly how the Government reached the figure of seven meets. I accept that it is a compromise, but why that particular figure?

Viscount Ullswater called for the limit to be scrapped completely. Why have the Government ignored that option? So far, the Government have failed to provide a justification for maintaining a limit of any sort. Indeed, the Minister in the other place provided a curious answer:

"My Lords, seven is better than four . . . Seven is satisfactory for all point-to-point racing, except for Larkhill, as far as I can see. This is a compromise; I hope it is an acceptable compromise."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 2004; Vol. 664, c. 43–4.]

That does not really let us know a lot about the Government's thinking.

We do not intend to overturn this amendment, which is certainly a considerable improvement on the original drafting of the Bill. It would be useful, however, if the Minister could give the Government's reason for choosing seven rather than any other number.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I readily acknowledge the work of Viscount Ullswater in the other place and accept that the amendment came about because of the work that he did and the representations he made. That is the spirit in which the legislation has gone through its stages in both Houses. That is not unique, but it is unusual, and I pay tribute to that. I read the same bit of Hansard as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), which is why I was smiling a little as he quoted it.

Unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a scientific explanation as to why it is seven and not four. It is a compromise, as the Minister in the other place said. It has been accepted by those with a keen interest in the issue and it was accepted by Viscount Ullswater. I think that we should accept that and move forward. The amendment will not jeopardise any point-to-point races in coming years and if a change is thought necessary in future years, the Government will by then have evidence against which to set any further amendment. This is a case of test it and see. Given that no point-to-point race will be discriminated against, I hope that the House will agree the amendment so that we may make further progress.

The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate question. All of us like to think that legislation is rooted in extensive evidence and careful logical thought, but sometimes we have to estimate what will work best in certain circumstances. When I read the report of the debate in the other place, I thought that that had happened in this case. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation. In any case, I welcome his general comments on the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Abolition of levy

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I hope that this second amendment will find favour with the House. It is an important, although not a major point. It acts on the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the other place. Clause 15(1) will enable the Government to commence, under order-making powers, the abolition of the horserace betting levy system. In the Bill as originally drafted, no parliamentary procedure was specified. The Committee was concerned that consequential amendment could be made to primary legislation without Parliament having the opportunity to consider it. The Government accepted that recommendation and moved an amendment to provide that the negative resolution procedure shall apply to all orders made under clause 15(1), and not the positive resolution procedure.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

Given that the occasions when the Government decide they should give more power to Parliament rather than keep it for themselves are few and far between, I can only welcome the amendment. We should be grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's seventh report, which recommended that clause 15 should be amended. The Committee wrote:

"Clause 15(1) provides for an order, subject to no Parliamentary procedure, activating repeals and the dissolution of the Horserace Betting Levy Board . . . Clause 15(2)(c) enables the order under clause 15(1) also to make consequential provision which can include amending enactments. The Committee normally expects such provisions to be subject to the affirmative procedure but, in this instance, since the provision is limited to consequential provision and in the light of Schedule 4 to the bill, the Committee recommends that the appropriate level of Parliamentary procedure in this case is negative procedure."

If Members understand that, they are doing much better than me.

Accordingly, in Committee, the Government tabled an amendment to provide that the negative resolution procedure will apply to all orders made under clause 15(1). It is right that the Government responded appropriately to the recommendations and I am grateful to them for doing so.

My colleagues in the other place expressed several concerns about the timing of the abolition of the levy and have sought assurances to protect the legacy of the Horserace Betting Levy Board's good work. Unfortunately, despite the force of our arguments, we did not manage to convince the Government that they should make important changes, so, given that the amendment places a check—albeit a small one—on the Government's power to abolish the levy, I offer it our support.

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I echo the words of the Minister and of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). The Committee proceedings were conducted with a conviviality that is not usual in political affairs; the whole Committee came together in a single drive to ensure that, in particular, the Tote was returned to a racing trust. I was surprised and delighted by that atmosphere and only wish that our other debates could be conducted in similar fashion.

I welcome moves for the abolition of the levy. It has been a source of friction over the years. I can understand the Secretary of State's wanting to get rid of it at the earliest possible opportunity, but there have been a number of difficulties.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the spirit in which our deliberations in Committee were conducted. In view of his belief, which I share, that the most appropriate sale would be to a racing trust, does he acknowledge that some difficulties were created in another place by some of his colleagues who took a rather different view? Does he disagree with them?

Richard Page (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire)

I am very disappointed that the hon. Gentleman endeavours to bring friction where there was peace and unanimity. However, bearing in mind the political party he comes from, that situation can be taken as the norm. My noble Friend was simply trying to tease out further the Government's commitment to a sale to a racing trust. He in no way wanted to scupper the Bill or see it destroyed; he did what he did for the purposes of clarity and explanation. Personally, I would have gone about things slightly differently, but there we are. We all take individual approaches to our aims and objectives in life.

I welcome abolition of the levy, but I want to ensure that what takes its place will be for racing, so I welcome the Minister's statement that the provisions will be subject to resolution by Parliament. It is extremely important that the statements by Ministers over the years that the sale will be to a racing trust actually come to pass. We take the racing industry very much for granted in the UK. It is not fully appreciated that 100,000 people are employed in the industry and if it is put at risk it could go abroad, as so much of our manufacturing has done. All the trials and tribulations and dramas of the past year or so have actually put our racing industry on to a strong basis.

Some of the major owners—the gentlemen from the Arab states—have behaved with a dignity and maturity that I can but admire, and in some cases wish was emulated in the rest of the industry, and have given tremendous support. I want nothing that would drive them away. The amendment offers further reassurance about the way forward, so I can only hope that when it reaches the statute book the Government move quickly to see the Tote put into the hands of a racing trust for the benefit of racing.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I fully support the racing trust concept for the future of the Tote and welcome the acceptance of the amendment, which applies some additional parliamentary protection in respect of the abolition of the levy. I want to make three points about why that protection may be important.

The levy has been criticised; it has been a matter for dispute. One advantage enjoyed by the levy board is that by custom and practice it has always included an independent Scottish member to protect the particular interests of Scottish racing. That provision was not in the legislation, but came about through custom and accord. Many Scottish Members are worried that the successor organisation, the British Horseracing Board, has no such organisational connection with Scottish racing. Some of us held a cross-party meeting with the BHB this morning to discuss that point, and we await its proposals on how it will accommodate the specific dimension of Scottish racing in its structures. The Minister for the Arts will know that the Minister for Sport and Tourism has expressed his sympathy and support for, and interest in, the matter, so I hope that she is aware of the situation.

My other two points relate to the funding of racing. We read in this morning's Racing Post that the future system of support for the racing industry will depend on hypothecation relating to betting turnover. However, at least one major bookmakers firm, Ladbrokes, intends to try to charge the industry to supply it with information on which to base the hypothecation. While a firm may legitimately charge a fee for commercial data, the future funding of racing will depend on that information, so it will not be commercial data. Incidentally, that information cannot come from only one company because it must be produced by all bookmakers and betting exchanges if it is to provide a solid base of information for the future funding of racing. What is the Minister's view of a company that apparently wants to hold the rest of the racing industry to ransom by demanding payment for information? Such an arrangement would put a question mark over the basis of the new funding settlement.

Whatever the faults, trials and tribulations of the levy board, it provided a balance so that informed judgments could be made on developments in racing that were for the good of the sport as a whole. The various interested parties in racing have reached an agreement that in addition to the hypothecation from betting revenue there will be a development fund. The fund will apply to races that might not be especially commercial and might involve only a few runners, yet are essential preparatory races for other events because if they were not to take place, the eventually championship races up to which they led could encounter considerable difficulties. The development fund will be part of the new concept, but it might make up only as little as 6 per cent. of racing's overall revenue. It cannot be right that the money available to support racing as a sport should be such a small percentage of the overall revenue generated by the racing industry.

I support the amendment, the Government's willingness to accept it and the camaraderie with which we will, I hope, proceed towards a racing trust running the Tote. However, before we all celebrate the departure of the levy and the levy board, we must remember that that system of funding included vital protections. It is up to the Government to tell us that those protections will continue to be offered under the new framework towards which we are moving.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I thank the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for their contributions. It is clear from our short debate that it is essential for us to accept the Lords amendment. There is general agreement about the course of action that has been taken, but understandable worry about whether the benefit that has accrued to the industry will continue under the new arrangements. Indeed, the industry is thriving and it contributes to our nation economically and in other ways.

I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will appreciate that I have come to the Bill exceptionally late in its passage and, if I am honest, I have not taken a day-to-day interest in it throughout its stages in the Commons and the Lords. I shall refrain from commenting on the article in today's Racing Post.

I hope that the procedure that we are adopting means that there will be an opportunity for both Houses to discuss legitimate concerns about percentages, the meaning of data that may be sold as a commercial activity and the protection of the industry. I hope that the general principles are agreed and that debates on detail will be held in both Houses.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 — Distribution Policy

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 4.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

As this is the final group of amendments, I join the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Robertson) in taking the opportunity, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, to thank him and to congratulate all hon. Members, officers and officials who have worked so hard to get the Bill through both Houses.

The amendments, tabled by Lord Moynihan, Lord Luke and Lord Glentoran, are sensible. It is right that they be included in the Bill. It was no one's intention to rule out discussion or consultation with the British Paralympic Association. The amendments add the British Paralympic Association to the list of bodies that the Olympic lottery distributor must consult when preparing or revising its distribution policy and to which the distributor must send a copy of any policy or revision.

The Government fully endorse the central role of the British Paralympic Association in our bid for the 2012 London Olympics and Paralympics, and the other place was happy to accept the amendments. I propose that the House accept both of them.

Hugh Robertson (Conservative, Faversham and Mid Kent)

I am delighted that the Government have accepted our amendment. It is even more satisfying when the purpose is so important and the cause so patently just. Lord Moynihan rightly identified that the Bill failed to include the British Paralympic Association in its list of statutory consultees on the Olympic lottery strategy. I am pleased that that omission has been corrected.

It is right and just to take stock of the achievements of our Paralympic athletes and their association. Our Paralympic athletes gained 35 gold medals, 30 silvers and 29 bronzes in Athens. It is right that we should pay tribute to that outstanding achievement. I and other members of my party had the privilege of meeting at our conference in Bournemouth two gold medal winners—Darren Kenny in cycling and Danny Crates in athletics. I am sure that other hon. Members had the same opportunity at their conferences.

Each performance is an individual achievement, but our Paralympians receive an outstanding service from the British Paralympic Association. It is clearly best placed to advise on the specific specialist requirements of its athletes and their sports. The Bill, as amended, will allow that expertise to be tapped into by the new Olympic lottery distributor. That is why I support the amendments.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Many of us had the opportunity to congratulate our Olympic team and I now echo the words of the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) in praise of all members of our Paralympic team.

We fully support the amendments. We are delighted that the Government accepted them, although we acknowledge that they intended to involve the Paralympic organisations at all stages. However, it is an important gesture to include the British Paralympic Association in the Bill because that demonstrates the importance that this House and the Lords place on the Paralympic games. They are a crucial part of the package for which we are bidding in 2012. We are not bidding just for the Olympics to come to London, but for the Paralympic games as well. Both those games will bring an enormous benefit to London and all parts of the UK. It is for those reasons that the Liberal Democrats fully support the activities of the team that is working so hard to ensure that the bid is successful and both games come here.

I share the comments made by others about the effective way in which the Bill was scrutinised in both Houses. I pay tribute to all the members of the Committee, who worked hard on the Bill. Will the Minister, who has taken up the baton at short notice, pass a message on to her right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, congratulating him on his work on this and related issues? Nevertheless, there remain a number of concerns about the Olympic lottery fund, which the amendments address.

Members on both sides of the House believe that the new Olympic lottery game will begin if—and I hope that this is the case—we mount a successful bid for the 2012 Olympics. The money that the game will raise, however, is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the overall lottery contribution to the funds. As a result, there will probably be a modest reduction in the money made available to other good causes, and the House understands that the loss will be distributed equally among them. I would be enormously grateful if the Minister confirmed that that is the Government's intention and that nothing in the lottery Bill expected in the Queen's Speech will change that plan. I congratulate the Minister on picking up the baton at such short notice, and I apologise to her, because the House will have noted that she was late for the start our debate, and had to rush into the Chamber. I plead guilty to detaining her, for which I apologise.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. Before the Minister responds, I hope, with regard to the final remarks of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that she will not stray too wide of the mark. The amendments before the House are narrowly drawn, so she may decide to respond to the hon. Gentleman at a later date.

Estelle Morris (Labour, Birmingham, Yardley)

It will not be the first time that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has led me astray, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Bath and for Faversham and Mid-Kent for their favourable welcome for the amendment. I join them in congratulating our Paralympic athletes on their achievement, and I emphasise that the Paralympic games are very much part of the 2012 bid. Our strength in that area will help to make the bid attractive and, we hope, successful. I underline the importance of cross-party support for the bid, and appreciate the backing that our preparations have received from members of all parties.

It is not for me to say whether lottery legislation will, or will not, be announced in the Queen's Speech. How much money will be raised by an Olympic lottery is very much a guesstimate. We do not know how many people will buy tickets or how much will be raised. We hope that the lottery will raise £750 million, but the hon. Member for Bath is right that it is unlikely to raise sufficient funds for other recipients to remain unaffected and I am not going to pretend otherwise. It would be wonderful if that were not the case, but that is not the likely outcome. However, although our figures are very much guesstimates, the "fair share" funding for recipients has worked well since the inception of the lottery. The hon. Gentleman must wait for the contents of any lottery legislation introduced after the Queen's Speech, but I am happy with the success of that funding scheme. He ought not to be afraid that any single recipient will bear undue losses in the effort to provide more money for the Olympic bid. We must wait, however, for any such legislation and, as Mr. Deputy Speaker said, to go further may be to stray from the subject of the amendments. However, the hon. Gentleman's question was half-legitimate, so I was happy to answer it.

I hope that the amendment will find favour in the House. I thank hon. Members for their consideration of the Lords amendments, which was indicative of the Bill's passage through both Houses. I also thank them for their patience during my short, late and not very knowledgeable appearance.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.