THE GRAND NATIONAL

HL Deb 23 October 1975 vol 364 cc1694-719

7.33 p.m.

Lord WIGG rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to ensure the continuance of the Grand National. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to pose the Unstarred Question standing in my name. It might be in the minds of some noble Lords that the Government have no responsibility in this matter and that I am straining the rules of your Lordships' House by asking this Question at all. But that is not so. Over the last few years there have been a number of occasions in another place when announcements have been made by Ministers, and Questions have been put to the Prime Minister. There is no doubt that the Government not only have a responsibility but also a role to play in securing the continuance of the Grand National.

I wonder what the historians of our time will say of us when they read that some 15 years ago, when the Wolfenden Report was debated, the present Speaker of the House of Commons, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: The Wolfenden Report is something which in present circumstances must wait for some time to come. Here is an affluent society, with opportunities to hand to further facilities for sports of all kinds; and in 1960 nothing could be done. In August of this year a White Paper is published entitled Sport and Recreation. It contains the same sort of message, that facilities for sport and recreation cannot be exempted from the financial restraints of today. But I would invite your Lordships' attention to paragraph 8 of that White Paper, because it emphasises a point I wish to make in addressing your Lordships tonight. It says: An enjoyment of most activities depends a great deal on the provision of appropriate facilities and a measure of organisation. The message of the White Paper to local authorities and voluntary bodies up and down the country is: "We cannot afford it, any more than we could afford to implement Wolfenden. But there are things that can be done—depending upon organisation, upon enthusiasm and the exercise of initiative and a certain amount of intelligence." That is the point I want to make tonight.

Strangely enough, I am not going to ask Her Majesty's Government to subscribe a penny. I do not believe at this stage that money is what is needed; but certainly over the last few years there has been a neglect of opportunity, which again commentators upon our time will not fail to note. The night is young, but I quite appreciate there may be an impression in your Lordships' House regarding a debate of this kind that any noble Lord who raises an Unstarred Question should not speak for too long. I trust your Lordships will forgive me if I strain that theory somewhat; but so much nonsense has been talked about the continuance of the Grand National and similar matters that, if I may, I am going to put the record straight.

Aintree itself, where the Grand National is run, consists of about 260 acres, and I want to draw attention to how this is split up. Only 41 acres are required exclusively for racing. Ninety-nine acres are required partly for racing but can be used for other purposes when not being used for racing: they have a dual purpose. That is 140 acres. But there are 120 acres exclusively available as an open space, which will not form part of the racecourse. The authority for my figures is the Surveyor's Department of the City of Liverpool, and they are dated the 12th November 1969. I am anxious not only to quote figures but also to give very close references.

Let us now go back to the history of Aintree since the end of the War. I he first point I want to make is that immediately after the War the Jockey Club set up an inquiry into the future of racecourses and their ownership. Ours is one of the few countries in the world where the ownership of racecourses remains largely in private hands. Lord Portal reported, as I understand it, that in his judgment it would be wise if steps were taken to secure the ownership of all racecourses under one authority; but of course we were then at the height of a bonanza, just as we were after the First World War. The crowds were enormous in fact on the day when Tarquin won the St. Leger there were 120,000 people present at Doncaster. Unfortunately, the great volume of money that went through the gates vanished—it may have been tobacco smoke; it certainly did not find its place in the furtherance of racing or of racing facilities. Indeed, once the post-War bonanza had ended the begging bowl found a place.

Lord Sefton, one of the richest men in England, a member of the Jockey Club, could, had he wished, have taken steps to ensure that Aintree was available for racing for all time. Mr. Stanley Wootton carried on his conscience, as I well know, the future of Epsom. It is one of the few matters in my life of which I am proud because I worked out with him the steps that were taken that secured the future of the Derby for the next thousand years; and not only the future of the Derby, but the 630 acres of Epsom Downs and its environs were secured as an open space for the people of London and Surrey. But Lord Sefton, a lover of racing, a very rich man, a member of the Jockey Club, in 1949 sold Aintree to Mrs. Topham for £275,000.

The sale contract contained a restrictive covenant, which clearly Lord Sefton and his advisers thought was strong enough to secure the continuance of the Grand National during the lifetime of Lord Sefton. Mrs. Topham, having acquired the racecourse, then proceeded to see how she could escape from the covenant and took her case to the Court of Appeal. She lost, but she was not satisfied; her advisers were not satisfied, and they came to your Lordships' House, and on 30th March 1969 the restrictive covenant was set aside.

I want at that point to take up the story from another angle. I was a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board and the Horserace Totalisator Board and it was very clear that by the early 1960s racecourse after racecourse was being picked off. Manchester had gone. Birmingham, which again was owned by a member of the Jockey Club, was disposed of with enormous profit to the major shareholders. It did not stop. The chief beneficiary subsequently wrote to me and to the Minister for Sport with a suggestion that the Government should provide money to build another racecourse in the Midlands. But it was not only provincial racecourses that looked as if they were going to depart from the racing scene. At Hurst Park the metropolitan racecourse was penetrated from within; that is to say, the shares were acquired in sufficient number, racing ended and it became a housing estate. I well remember talking to one of the directors, who had always avowed himself as a great lover of racing. He said, "Of course, I love racing. But, of course, I've got a duty to the shareholders." And in those circumstances, human nature being what it is, at least in certain social circumstances, we know who won.

Again, it was not only Hurst Park that came under attack. There were major speculations which called into doubt the future of Sandown, the future of Kemp-ton Park, and it was only because of the action by Mr. Wootton that it was possible to put Sandown and Epsom together and for the Levy Board to acquire the shares of United Racecourses. Then, too, there was the generosity of Mr. Robinson, who had acquired Kempton, about which there had been a major speculation led by one of the great building companies, property developers. Mr. Robinson acquired it in order to secure that Kempton would remain as a racecourse, and he subsequently sold it to the Levy Board for the same figure as he paid for it.

It was about this time—actually on 21st March 1962 that I wrote to Dr. Charles Hill (as he then was, but the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, as he now is) inquiring about the future of Kempton and Sandown. I subsequently went to see him and invited his attention to what had been happening up and down the country and to the possibility that one racecourse after another was going to disappear. On 28th March 1962, Dr. Hill was kind enough to write to me spelling out that both Sandown and Kempton Park came within the approved Metropolitan Green Belt and that no proposals for the development of either of these racecourses had been made. That killed the speculation in that quarter.

Then, later on, Dr. Hill left the Department of Housing and Local Government and his place was taken by Sir Keith Joseph—and I want to pay my tribute. I have written in complimentary terms to Lord Hill and spoken to him because he played a very important part in sterilising these courses against the possibility of takeover. Certainly Sir Keith Joseph is even better because he sent out a circular letter. On 28thNovember 1962, he wrote to the Association of Municipal Corporations and County Council Associations and the Urban District Councils Association inviting their attention to the importance of racecourses as open spaces and urged that all local authorities should make contact with the racecourses in their area to see how they could be developed in the service of the community.

About this time I had written a memorandum for Dr. Hill and I based its content on what had happened at Wolver-hampton, where the education authority had leased the inner area of the racecourse and used it as a base for cricket pitches, football pitches, basketball pitches, and when the weighing room was rebuilt the need was borne in mind for providing changing facilities for young people in the area. So my point tonight is this: the utilisation of all racecourses —and this is a theme I have been running with the help of two Conservative Ministers—in the interest of the community of which they are a part.

In 1964 there came a Labour Government and one of the first jobs that was given to me by the Prime Minister was to see what could be done about Aintree; because an approach had been made to him by, then, Alderman Sefton, who was the leader of the majority group on the Liverpool City Council. I had talks with Lord Derby, and prior to becoming a Minister I had served on a committee that was concerned with Aintree, and I also had talks with the late Mr. Crossman who, as your Lordships know, is the author of the Crossman memoirs. I mention that because I play a fairly prominent part in those that have already been published; and, while tonight I shall not go back and recall conversations I had with Mr. Crossman, the fundamental difference between Mr. Crossman and myself was that he kept a diary and no papers while I kept the papers and no diary. It may even be, if it is ever pushed to the test, that my recollection and the account that I give is nearer to accuracy than some of the things I have already seen in the Sunday Times, which I think really are almost on the verge of fiction.

However, Mr. Crossman on 7th October wrote to me and said that his Department had looked very carefully at the local planning authorities in whose areas were racecourses which might become the subject for development; and he had given instructions that the Department should write formally to the clerks of the courses concerned pointing out the very important role which racecourses can play in the local environment. Mr. Crossman followed in the splendid tradition of Dr. Hill and Sir Keith Joseph. On 9th December 1965, he gave a Written Answer in the House of Commons to Mr. Richard Stanley (then a Member of the House of Commons) who had associated himself with me in my talks with Dr. Hill and indeed had been kind enough to support my memorandum.

This Written Answer of the late Mr. Crossman, setting out the policy of the Government in relation to nine principal racecourses, of which Aintree was one, was based upon the fear that what had happened at Hurst Park and was threatened to happen at Sandown and Kempton could happen elsewhere, particularly to these nine important racecourses. He used words which have been most curiously misunderstood. He wrote a similar letter to all of the nine authorities. The words which have led to the misunderstanding—and I cannot quite understand why—were, "If you are minded to approve plans involving the development of all or part of your local racecourses for non-racing purposes, your application should be forwarded to me."

For some reason or another, it is thought "on high"—I will leave noble Lords to interpret what I mean by "on high"—that when an application is made and the local authority is not minded to approve it. that is the end of the matter. That is tantamount to giving that authority a veto. I cannot understand how anybody, particularly anybody with some knowledge of local government, could so misinterpret it. It means that if an application is made for the development of any racecourse for non-racing purposes, as soon as a local authority looks at it with an eye to saying, "Yes", they stop in their tracks, become a post office and that is that. But if they are not minded to approve the application, the applicant is in the same position as the authority to which the application is made. He can appeal. If the authority refuses an application, it means that the application of any of those nine racecourses will end on the Minister's desk.

That is the background to Aintree and to the other racecourses. Let me now deal with the question of responsibility. I mention this in case any noble Lord should think it is doubtful whether the Government could take any action. On 4th July 1967 the late Sir Gerald Nabarro questioned the Prime Minister on the future of Aintree. He had it in mind that the Prime Minister was a Member of Parliament for a Merseyside constituency, that Aintree was hard by and that he had a general as well as a particular interest in the problem.

That was not the end of the matter I pick up the thread of what happened to the application for help. I broke off at the point where Mrs. Topham had secured a decision in the House of Lords. She was anxious to obtain legal sanction to relieve herself of the responsibility of the covenant which arose from the will of the late Lord Sefton because she was minded in 1964—that is to say, just before the Crossman decision—to sell Aintree to Capital and Counties Property Company for £900,000. That was not a bad profit to be gained by not lifting a finger; she bought it for £275,000 and proposed to sell it for £900,000. However, this deal fell through for some reason or another.

The negotiations continued with Mrs. Topham and on 26th May 1966 Lord Harding, my predecessor, who was then chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, wrote to the Home Secretary inquiring whether there was any prospect of the Government sanctioning a development loan. On 26th July 1966 the Home Secretary replied turning down the application for a loan, but indicating that he would be prepared to contemplate a guarantee by the board of interest and capital on a comparatively small capital loan of about £100,000 and a payment of about £10,000 per annum.

On 3rd February 1967 the senior steward of the Jockey Club, together with Lord Leverhulme and Lord Harding, met the clerk of the Lancashire County Council at Crewe and reached the following joint agreement. They agreed, first, that the Lancashire County Council should buy Aintree and develop it as a regional sports centre which would include racing; and, secondly, that racing could continue at Aintree only on the present Grand National course. This is a very important consideration indeed in the light of some of the matters which have appeared recently in the Press.

There was a completely misinformed article in one of the national newspapers—I think it appeared yesterday or the day before—which made the point that somebody with a divider had worked out a scheme in the course of an hour whereby Aintree could be turned upside down. On 1st April 1968 Lord Leverhulme, who is now the senior steward but who was then, I think, the chairman of the National Hunt Committee, wrote to me and said that the stewards of the National Hunt Committee had always taken the view that the Grand National course must remain unaltered and that they had issued a public statement to the effect that they would not allow the Grand National to be held on any course other than Aintree. He went on to say that in view of some of the discussions which were taking place, he felt it was only right that there should be no possible misunderstanding on that point.

I am glad to be able to emphasise that fact because the suggestion was made that there had been lack of imagination and that the Daily Express and the person who communicated with them had had a great inspiration. All I can say is that about 50 years ago somebody fell laughing out of his cradle on that one. It has been looked at half a dozen times and has been turned down specifically on account of the basic requirement of the Turf authorities. I personally think that this requirement is absolutely right. The article also dealt with the question of cost. I remember an estimate being made of what it would cost to reorganise the racecourse and turn it round. Some years ago the cost was thought to be £10 million. Therefore one can rule out that idea.

The third point on which agreement was reached at this meeting between the Lancashire County Council and the turf authorities was that the racecourse should be leased to an independent, non-profit-making racecourse formed by the Racecourse Holdings Trust, now owned by the Jockey Club, and that Lord Leverhulme should be the chairman of the proposed company. The idea that emerged from Mrs. Topham's release from the covenant and failure to sell the racecourse was that it should be disposed of to a local authority. This was in line with the policies that had been adumbrated by both the Conservative and the Labour Governments.

Unfortunately, on 9th June 1967 the clerk of the Lancashire County Council wrote to say that the Lancashire County Council had decided to withdraw from the negotiations to purchase Aintree. At meetings which were held by the Turf Board and the Levy Board in July 1967, it was agreed that Mrs. Topham should be asked to run the Grand National in 1968. It was noted that the Levy Board was not in a position either to fund the acquisition of the racecourse or to meet the cost of large-scale improvements to it.

We come now to July 1968. Again the Government had intervened. They Were conscious of the importance of Aintree and they had done their best. I pay tribute here to the work of the Minister of Sport, Mr. Denis Howell, who on the 2nd July 1968 announced in the House of Commons a scheme whereby the Grand National could be continued. This met with an enthusiastic reception from the Press, who thought that was the end of the matter. But there have been many ends in connection with this matter, only for it to bounce up again the next time. In 1968 the proposal was that the Government would make a loan and they would also make a grant not exceeding 50 per cent. in respect of that portion of the site which was to be kept as an open site, namely the 120 acres.

So we then went from July 1968 until June 1970, going backwards and forwards. The local authority—the Lancashire County Council—pulled out and their place was taken by Liverpool. There had been a change of political balance and Alderman Sefton, who had been the leader of the group, went and his place was taken by a Conservative, Alderman MacDonald-Stewart, who had been a Member of the House of Commons and to whom again I pay tribute. He played a captain's innings if ever a man did, intelligent, honourable, sticking to his word, and he picked up the negotiations at the point where they had been dropped by Lancashire. The point was reached where the Liverpool Corporation expressed a willingness to acquire Aintree on the same basis as Lancashire had acquired it; that is, they would take the site, develop the amenity in the interests of the community as a whole and they would then lease the running of the Grand National to a body which was to be a committee to be presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Leverhulme, who had been chairman of the National Hunt Commitee and who is now the senior steward.

I well remember attending a meeting on the 19th November, 1969. I was there and there were also present Lord Leverhulme, Sir Randle Feilden, Alderman MacDonald-Stewart, Mr. S. Holmes—then the town clerk of Liverpool, now the senior executive—and we went over the whole ground. I spelt out what I believed to be the truth, that the Home Secretary would not allow the Levy Board to run a race meeting. This had been made perfectly clear to me in relation to Epsom, Sandown and Kemp-ton, but we brought into being United Racecourses, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary. They run Epsom, Sandown and Kempton, whereas Liverpool was to be run by Lord Leverhulme.

I do not think Lord Leverhulme's committee was particularly active and perhaps I might make a slightly acidulated comment on this. On 2nd May 1969 a decision had been taken by the Joint Racing Board, the successor of the Turf Board that steps should now be taken to activate the Leverhulme Committee. As it had done nothing since the 2nd May 1969 until the 23rd October 1975, and that after it had been activated, I wonder what would have happened if it had not been activated? That is a slightly acidulated comment, but it emphasises the point I want to make: the Jockey Club, although they had obtained the right—perhaps that is putting it a little strongly; indicated a desire, perhaps to run Aintree, they never lifted a finger to do anything about it from that day to this. There was not only available the Leverhulme Committee, which had been activated, but in the meantime the Jockey Club had acquired five racecourses for the comparatively modest sum of £1,700 and held them under the umbrella of the Racecourse Holdings Trust. So there was available, had they wished to do it, the Leverhulme Committee, which had been activated in May 1969, or it could have been run by the Racecourse Holdings Trust.

We come now to the calamity. The maximum amount that the district valuer would allow Liverpool to pay was £1,225,000. Mrs. Topham is another great lover of racing, but she also indicated right the way through that she found some appeal in a large cheque. At this point I have often wondered whether she was starting to play politics. The General Election was approaching and she may have thought it was just possible that she would get more out of another Administration than she would get from a Labour Government. Of course this was wrong. It was nonsense because the district valuer is immune from political considerations and the value he placed on it was £1,225,000. The town clerk, now Sir Stanley Holmes, had to write to say it.

But noble Lords should remember that it contained an element of what they described as "hope value"; that is, there was provision within that sum for the development of part of the area. But in June 1970 Mrs. Topham called off all the negotiations; she then proceeded to run the Grand National in 1971 and then she looked round for a buyer and she found one. She found one in the person of Mr. Davis, who is the chairman of the Walton Group. I have never been quite clear until recently what exactly Mr. Davis paid, but I know that Mrs. Topham was originally asking for £3 million, but then when she found the offer was £1,225,000 she reduced per price to £2 million. But, as I understand, the situation, Mr. Davis paid £3 million, and all I can say is that his heart must be much bigger than his head. His heart must have led him away into paying this astronomical figure, because under no consideration whatever—even at the height of the property market—could it ever have been worth that sum.

Of course poor Mr. Davis now is faced with a catastrophic fall in property values, plus the fact that he has to bear the interest charges on the £3 million. He writes to me and I will read some of his letters to your Lordships a little later. He writes that he has to meet a bill for £41 millions. We move now to the present scene. I want to get the record absolutely straight, and although I trespass on your Lordships' time I do so because this is the first time that a full account has been given as to what transpired; then I will indicate the steps that I think should be taken to put matters right. I believe that the Grand National can be kept in being on terms which will be of permanent value to the people of Merseyside and of permanent value to racing.

Against that background I had dropped out. I was an observer of the scene; from time to time I was telephoned. But in mid-August of this year I was telephoned by the racing manager of Aintree, Mr. Smith. He asked me whether he could meet me and I said "Yes", but I thought that if he wanted to talk to me on this very difficult matter it would be as well if he would write to set out the purposes of such a meeting. I heard nothing. On the 26th August, Mr. Davis, the chairman of the Walton Group and the owner of Aintree, telephoned me and used terms similar to Mr. Smith, and I said that I would be willing to meet him but I wanted him to write, setting out the purpose of the meeting.

He wrote, and I think it is not unimportant that your Lordships should know the terms in which he wrote because it sets out the difficulty. He said: My company's purchase of the Aintree racecourse has now cost approximately £4¼ million and I have irrevocably decided I must put the course up for auction in the autumn of this year. However, I am very conscious of the national importance of the Grand National steeplechase and the desirability of ensuring its long-term future, and if possible dramatic price reductions for the general public. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to reconcile the cost of acquiring, running and maintaining the Aintree racecourse, on the one hand, with the need, on the other, to guarantee its future and reduce entrance fees. You were good enough to say that you would be prepared to give me the benefit of your thoughts and advice on the perennial problems surrounding Aintree Racecourse and I should now like to take you up on your kind offer". He asked me to lunch with him on Monday 1st September.

On 28th August I was telephoned by, I believe, the BBC—certainly somebody connected with radio in Liverpool—who wanted my comments on the fact that I was visiting Aintree with a view to persuading bookmakers to give financial support to Aintree. So I wrote to Mr. Davies and said, When I agreed on the telephone to lunch with you on Monday, I was unaware that your racing manager Mr. Smith had informed the BBC that my meeting with you was one in which I was speaking to the bookmakers in connection with Aintree. As you will know, this statement is completely untrue and in the circumstances I wish to cancel the arrangement I have made to meet you.

The next thing to happen was that I was telephoned by Mr. Fletcher, the Editor of Sporting Life—and I want to pay tribute to him for the part he has played —who said that the statements which had been made by Mr. Smith were completely unauthorised; Mr. Davies knew nothing about them. So I said, "Forget it". He then came back and said that Mr. Davies was in difficulty. There was £4¼ million; he was getting no help from the turf authorities or from the Levy Board and he wanted some advice as to where to go. I expressed the view that his decision to auction the course was mad. What he was going to do was to ask somebody to make a bid for the biggest white elephant in the world and take on all his troubles, and pay for the privilege of doing so. Mr. Fletcher pressed me and I finally agreed to go to lunch at his invitation. At the lunch was present Mr. W. T. Davies, chairman of the Walton Group, his financial adviser Mr. Barnes from Lazards and his financial director Mr. Derek Dale.

I said, "I want to make one thing absolutely clear beyond any shadow of doubt. What contacts have you had with the Levy Board? What plans are you discussing with the Levy Board? I am not going to get caught up in somebody else's plans". He and Mr. Barnes said that they had seen the chairman of the Levy Board, Sir Desmond Plummer, but so far as they knew he had no plans no suggestions were made and no arrangements had been made for a further meeting. I said, "Well, under those circumstances we will talk. But the second point is this. It is said that your decision to auction Aintree is one that you have been forced to take because of financial pressures. Indeed, it is said that Aintree is in hock to foreign banks".

I made that statement because on the previous Saturday I had been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to go with him to Sandown to discuss with Mr. Evelyn Rothschild—they are both directors of United Racecourses—and I had expressed the view that the only organisation which could run Aintree at short notice was United Racecourses and the person well qualified to do it was Air Commodore Brooks, the managing director, who had run with great success at Kempton and Sandown. Mr. Davies said, "This statement is completely untrue". I said, "Would you be kind enough to clear this one up? Would you please write to me to that effect?" On 8th September he did and said: I am most grateful for drawing my attention to a rumour to the effect that the sale of Aintree Racecourse by auction on 16th October has hen forced upon me by foreign bankers who are supposed to finance my company. The rumour is completely unfounded, and I am able categorically to confirm that the decision to sell the Aintree Racecourse by auction is mine and mine alone. He then went on to give particulars of his merchant bankers and the like.

My advice was this. I said, "Have you made any contact at all with the Merseyside and Metropolitan County Council, because the two persons who can help you are Councillor Sefton, if he is so minded, and Sir Stanley Holmes, because no two men in the country know more about the problem than they. Their authority is the one that really ought to be running this. It links in with the policies which have been followed by both Conservative and Labour Governments". To my astonishment he said that no contact at all had been made. I volunteered to talk to Councillor Sefton to ascertain what his views were, what they had been in the past, and whether he was interested in the future of Aintree, and that I did. I then discovered that not only had no one from the Walton Group in respect of Aintree ever been anywhere near Merseyside and Metropolitan, but neither had the Levy Board. Neither body had been anywhere near. I am glad to say that subsequently Mr. Davies and his advisers have had a number of conversations and a number of visits and, for the first time, in the last few days proposals have been formulated—in what detail I do not know —and put by the Walton Group to Councillor Sefton and Sir Stanley Holmes, and there are proposals here which would enable Merseyside—if they arc so minded —to develop this amenity; and remember, my Lords, they are the dominant authority.

I am hopeful that the proposal I make to the Government will meet with approbation, because I certainly did not want to confront a Minister in this House unprepared. So I have given the proposal to the Secretary of State for the Environment whose problem I believe this is—it is basically an environmental problem—and I hope that the Secretary of State will invite Councillor Sefton and Sir Stanley Holmes to meet him to discuss this basically environmental problem which is in conformity with the Government's recent White Paper, to see whether the plans are likely to make sense. That would deal with the 120 acres and part of the 99 acres in the interest of the community as a whole. I must point out to your Lordships that if nothing is done and if racing stops, and the Levy Board no longer has any interest —I will come back to that point in a moment—and the shutters are put up, then ultimately, whether it is five years, 10 years, 50 years or 500 years, it will be a problem for the local authority. In addition to providing the base for the running of the Grand National, these 260 acres are an amenity which should be used by the community at large.

I now come to a very difficult problem—the problem of who is to run the Grand National. I told Mr. Davies, and I want to repeat what I said, that he had made a "box" of the job. I knew of nobody less qualified to run a racecourse than Mr. Davies and his advisers. I went further and said, in connection with the handling of the problem, that I knew of no mistakes that could be made which had not been made, and for the most part he had made the same mistakes over and over again, and the quicker he was shot of it the better, because he could not do it.

The second runner to run it was the Jockey Club, either through the Racecourse Holdings Trust or through the Leverhulme Committee. If they were not running it there were others—Mr. William McCarg at Ayr, Mr. Freddy Newton at Newcastle, Mr. Petch at York or his nephew Mr. Sanderson, any one of whom could run it. But there is a body which could do it and which has experience, because the clerk of the course at Kempton is the clerk of the course at Aintree, and one of Air Commodore Brooks' young men was manager for a while. I suggested at the lunch that Mr. Davies and his advisers should make contact with Air Commodore Brooks and this was done. Air Commodore Brooks went up to Aintree and had a look at it, and I am glad to say that he found the course was in good "nick". The work on the fences had been stopped, but he was of the opinion that if a decision could be taken by 1st November he would be able to put the Grand National on.

What is the form in which it should be done, because this procedure is of some importance? United Racecourses are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Levy Board. If any money is to be spent on this it must be submitted, in my judgment, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because Section 25of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act lays down the conditions and the powers which the Levy Board has, to do three things, the third one being the improvement of racing. This could come into this category, but any activity or scheme in this connection would require the approval of the Secretary of State. What I suggested to Mr. Davies, and he acquiesced, was that he should get in touch with United Racecourses; because, although Air Commodore Brooks went up to Aintree, there have been no further communications between anyone on the Levy Board side—that is, from United Racecourses or from the Levy Board itself—and the Walton Group since 7th October. The time is getting very short.

What I suggest is that United Racecourses should be asked by the Walton Group to run Aintree from 1st November until after the next Grand National, under a very tightly drawn management agreement in which no money would pass. It could well be that United Racecourses would say, "We ought to be paid something"; that is a commercial matter for them to decide. I should have thought it would be generous, in the circumstances, in view of the urgency and the need for something to be done, for United Racecourses to do it without any charge being made. So my first question is to ask the Secretary of State to see representatives from the Merseyside Metropolitan Corporation, always bearing in mind that both the Liverpool District Council and the Sefton District Council are also involved, and at the appropriate moment they, too, should be brought into consultation either directly or indirectly.

At the same time, the Secretary of State should see the representatives of the Walton Group, including Mr. Davies, and ask him, too, whether he will agree to the racecourse being run; in other words, that the Secretary of State should act as a catalyst to deal with what is essentially the long-term problem of getting Aintree run and developed as an amenity, in the interests of the community. Secondly, he should talk to the Walton Group, so that the racing side of it can be handled competently in the interests of racing as a whole. I believe that if the Secretary of State will do just that the future of Aintree is assured.

8.24 p.m.

Lord CRAWSHAW

My Lords, I feel sure the House would like me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for raising this matter this evening and for showing his great concern in this immense problem. I also thank the Government for giving time for this debate at a moment when the timetable is so full. It certainly renews my faith in their sense of priorities and perspective. I should like to support the noble Lord. Lord Wigg, in asking the Government if they are aware of the widespread concern about the possible demise of a famous and heroic national event which, as the noble Lord has said, has had a great many illnesses over the years but, luckily, has not lain down and died. The event, needless to say, has a great national and international prestige, is unique in the sporting calendar, and on the outcome of it millions of people chance a small speculation. I also need hardly remind the Government that they receive more money in betting tax from this race than from any other, including the Derby. Much as I should like to, I do not think I need dwell on this aspect at this hour, nor on the contention, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, mentioned, that the race must be run at Aintree. It would not be the same anywhere else.

It is an amenity in the North-West. It also has a great Anglo-Irish flavour. The Government indeed have recognised the importance of this event in the North-West, encouraging projects there by making Merseyside a special development area. I have just mentioned, and I want to stress, the Anglo-Irish flavour. On the occasions that I have been there it has been heartening, in these days when one wonders slightly about the Irish in general, to find how much we have in common on a great day like National day. I believe it has a political significance which is thoroughly heartening.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said, the nub of the problem at the moment is the ownership, and as he explained it is a long and contentious issue. If and when the present arrangements finish, there seem to me to he three possible alternatives. One is that a body within racing, such as the Levy Board or some such body, should take over the ownership. Secondly—I think this is the one Lord Wigg emphasised —that the local authority should take over. The difficulty, as I see it, over that is the question of expenditure of public money, in this case presumably ratepayers' money; I do not know what assurances the local authority have in that regard. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he winds up, may say something about this. He might also, I hope, say something about the planning situation up there, because there seem to be several opinions about this. I hope he might be able to clarify the situation a little.

A possible third alternative and maybe a last resort, though I still feel a fairly formidable last resort, is an idea which I only last night discussed with Captain Ryan Price, that an appeal should be made with the aid of the sporting Press to the sporting public to raise a reasonable sum to buy the racecourse. Captain Ryan Price is a well-known figure in racing circles, as your Lordships know, and has great flair himself; and, of course, has trained the winner of the Grand National on at least one occasion. He and I, and I think many other noble Lords, are confident that with the support of the Press the public response would be immense. I do not believe that would be a fanciful way of raising a large capital sum.

My final point on the ownership, as again the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has mentioned, is that someone must make a move fairly soon, because if next year's National is to be run arrangements at Aintree, and indeed the preparation of horses, must begin forthwith. Having sorted out the problem of the ownership, the development and the administration there pose considerable problems, agree, too, on the question of administration, that United Racecourses, who run Epsom and Sandown, would be a suitable body, as indeed, if they would do it, would be the Racecourse Holdings Trust, who run Cheltenham. They would need considerable resources, for the grandstands and facilities are in a dilapidated condition. But I finish by saying that it is my hope, and I believe the hope of everybody else in this country, that before long we can once again see a full programme of racing throughout the year with the Grand National as Aintree's very special centrepiece.

8.31 p.m.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, I feel that not only your Lordships but the whole of the sporting public of this country and of America will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for raising tonight the problem of the Grand National. I shall not keep your Lordships long. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, had very many good points and there was very little on which I disagreed with him. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, also that I agree with him wholeheartedly.

There are two possible suggestions which I should like to make. We have two problems over the National: one is the immediate one, as the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said, for this next season in 1976, and then we have the long-term one. Probably everybody is agreed that a new owner must be found, and whether it is the Levy Board, the United Racecourses, or the local authority does not really matter, provided there is a way that the new owners can be found, and provided that Aintree is bought not with taxpayers' or ratepayers' money.

I have one suggestion for which I may be laughed out of court, but I feel that if a body like the United Racecourses ran Liverpool, and owned it, there would be not the slightest difficulty, if we could get over the Gaming Act, if an annual lottery was run for the entire public of this country who wished to buy tickets. They would get a prize, and then enough money would go for running Aintree and, on the lines of the Irish Sweep, the levy of money left could go to the hospitals, or the rather poor National Health Service. If it was necessary, if United Racecourses wanted to float a subsidiary company called Aintree Races Limited, or what you will, I see no reason why, within the next five years, we should not again have 15 or 20 days racing in Liverpool, and it would be back in the state it once was. It is a fine track, as I am sure everybody knows. I am certain that if we have some good public relations, and the Government, who are obviously very mindful of the danger that this institution is in, do something about it, there would be no problem in getting the money, certainly to keep it going for my lifetime, and, I hone, for much longer than that.

8.34 p.m.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for focusing interest on a matter which is of consuming interest to a wide spec- trum of people in this country and abroad. He gave us a detailed and retrospective analysis of how we arrived at the present position, and he looked closely at the trees, and he also looked at the wood. I shall confine myself to the wood because at this stage simplicity of approach, naïvety, is what should be brought to bear on the subject.

The Grand National is a popular and famous institution which has for some years been in decline—more rapidly of late. The fixture takes place upon a site which is not available for development for any purposes other than open air recreational pursuits, and particularly racing. In1973, as the noble Lord explained, and thereafter, there were transactions which started with Mr. Davies purchasing for his development company, the Walton Group, the Aintree course, for a sum which the noble Lord told us was much more than it was then worth, and which has involved him in considerable subsequent expense. It became clear that if that expense was to be recouped it could be only by a breach of the existing planning agreements on the course. Since then there has been uncertainty from year to year—and from month to month—as to whether the race would be run at all. In The Times of 5th March this year it was reported that the Jockey Club was still not in a position to send out the entry forms for the second and third days racing there.

The question now is whether the present owners of the Aintree course will be able to hold a fixture next year. I fear that we shall not know by November, although the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, hoped that we might have a decision by the 1st November. I do not think that that is really realistic. Of course, the calendar for next season will then be in the Press. The danger is not so much that, since we are used to that situation, but we shall not know next year, until after entries should be made, whether the race will be run. This is the short term problem. It is clear that there is room in the calendar for a fixture, a meeting, and that it fits well with the National Hunt Festival at Cheltenham, and there could be a secure future for it, provided there was a secure and viable management.

But, as I have said, this is a diminishing asset, but a national one. It is only as a national asset that Parliament is concerned in what is going on. We should not therefore become too involved in the details, or minutiae, of the transactions by which it will be saved. It is in our interests that it should be run with rather more predictable regularity than in the past, by management in which both the industry, the public, and the media have confidence, and that whoever buys it must make sense. If whoever buys it is without recent successful direct experience of running a racecourse, it would make sense for them to appoint agents who have. This idea has been canvassed by all three speakers, with whom I agree, and therefore I will not dilate upon that. I agree also with the suggestion that it should be the United Racecourse Company.

I would remind your Lordships that we are speaking of a racecourse which was bought as a speculation with risk capital, knowingly risk capital, at the top of the market, by an entrepreneur who is now faced with disposing of it when the market has declined. The market has declined for a concentration of reasons. The changes in the taxation law, the actual decline of real estate generally, the imminence of the Community Land Bill and, as I say, the decline of the market in general have all combined to make this a wasting asset. Any proposal from the Benches opposite that this operation of market forces upon a speculation which now appears to have been ill-advised should be offset out of public funds, whether local or national, would be surprising indeed. That is the point we on this side of the House wish to emphasise.

We recognise the importance of the asset, the public interest in it, and we recognise that it is of importance to all classes of the community at home and abroad. But we do not think that, because of the effects of the market upon the purchaser of 1973 or the prospective vendor of 1975 or 1976, the price should be inflated by an auction precipitated in this House, nor by the introduction of any form of public moneys, because our interest is to keep the race going.

It does not follow that if the race is not run in 1976, that it will never be run again. It does not follow that if it is not run by the present owners in 1976, that it will not be run again. We do not think that there should be any form of blackmail, saying, "You will not get your race unless somebody comes to our rescue." We do not think that this is a proper use of the powers of the Government, and it may well be that the proper answer to the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has asked, is, for the time being, "Nothing".

8.40 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am sure that we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Wigg for raising this Question tonight and I personally welcome it. He has an unrivalled knowledge of this subject and for my part he did not speak a moment too long. I am sure there will be widespread support for the view which has been expressed in all parts of the House that the Grand National steeplechase should continue on its present site at Aintree. This race provides one of the great public spectacles in racing and it would certainly be most regrettable if Aintree, the traditional home of the Grand National, were to be lost to racing. I wish to make it clear at the outset that the Government are most concerned about the future of the Grand National at Aintree.

It might be helpful if I gave the House some brief historical background. As my noble friend said, for many years Aintree was owned by Tophams Limited and there were periodic fears that the racecourse would be closed in the interests of property development. When the site was eventually put up for sale, the Minister then involved, my honourable friend Mr. Howell, produced a plan, in conjunction with the Sports Council, the Horserace Betting Levy Board and Lancashire County Council and then, subsequently, Liverpool Borough Council, to purchase the area and to develop recreational facilities for Merseyside people while retaining the racecourse. This proposal finally fell through when the site was bought by the Walton Commercial Group, under the chairmanship of Mr. William Davies, in 1973, as my noble friend said. Then, as now, payments by local authorities were subject to the limits set by the valuation of the district valuer and I gather that the selling price, which I understand was £3 million, was thought to be too high.

The Levy Board had various proposals relating to the race course put to them by Mr. Davies before this year's Grand National was run in April, and since that date the Levy Board has been active in trying to secure the Aintree course for the Grand National. Perhaps I should remind the House that the Horserace Betting Levy Board, now under the chairmanship of Sir Desmond Plummer, has the statutory duty of assessing and collecting monetary contributions from bookmakers and the Horserace Totalisator Board for purposes conducive to the improvement of breeds of horses, the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education and—and this is particularly relevant to this discussion—the improvement of horse racing. I assure your Lordships that it is the wish of the Levy Board to secure Aintreefor the Grand National provided this is done in proper terms and at a proper price. To this end, the Board has been in contact with local authorities in the area with some sort of joint venture in mind. This would ensure maximum utilisation of the land for recreational and leisure purposes and the continuance of racing for the local population as an amenity for the area of which it forms part and of course for racing enthusiasts throughout the world.

But the funds available to the Levy Board are not unlimited and the Board must, in considering Aintree, also have regard to the many and pressing needs of horse racing as a whole. It would be wrong for me to venture any comment at this stage on negotiations which are either proceding or pending, and on this aspect I can say little more than that the Levy Board will continue to pursue a proper solution, which is acceptable not only to the parties directly concerned but also to the racing industry and the nation as a whole. To this end, the Board is ready to have further discussions with Mr. Davies, the chairman of the Walton Commercial Group, the present owner of Aintree, his financial advisers and the local authorities. I will, however, add that should it not be possible to agree terms for a purchase, the Levy Board, through its subsidiary, United Racecourses Limited, would be more than willing to enter into an arrangement with Mr. Davies whereby the 1976 Grand National meeting would be managed by United Racecourses on terms to be agreed.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has not so far, in accordance with the established relationship between the Levy Board and the Secretary of State, been involved in the Board's handling of this matter and he will not be so involved until a positive proposal in connection with Aintree is put to him by the Board. This has not yet happened. But, as I said at the beginning, the Government are concerned about the future of Aintree and Ministers have considered what action, if any, they could properly and usefully take at this stage. We agree that at present there are really two issues. First, I am sure we all agree that we must ensure that the 1976 Grand National takes place, and on this we recognise, as does the Levy Board, the advantages of an arrangement, provided of course that satisfactory financial arrangements can be made, whereby United Racecourses Limited would organise the race. Secondly, there is the longer-term issue of sensibly developing the entire Aintree site for recreational and probably other purposes, with the racecourse of course being retained. This is a matter of local, regional and national concern and one to which the Government wish to see a satisfactory outcome. Planning permission would, of course, be required and as my noble friend Lord Wigg said, there is an established policy, dating from 1965, whereby the Secretary of State for the Environment would call in any planning applications which the local planning authorities were minded to approve, involving development of all or part of their local racecourse for non-racing purposes, and Aintree of course is one of the nine courses specified.

Against this background, the Government have concluded that the most useful action that could be taken on their behalf at this stage would be for my honourable friend the Minister of State for Sport, Mr. Denis Howell, to whom my noble friend kindly paid tribute, to have discussions with the local authorities involved and to meet the racing authorities in the shape of the Levy Board and the Jockey Club. I can tell the House that invitations to join in such discussions have already been extended to the local authorities concerned and have been accepted. Arrangements are also in hand for the Minister to have discussions with the chairman of the Levy Board and the senior steward of the Jockey Club, who, as my noble friend said, is Lord Leverhulme. This should ensure that the Government are au fait with the latest thinking of the various bodies concerned and that they know of the Government's interest and concern. More than this we do not think the Government can do at this juncture, and we certainly think it would be wrong to attempt to intervene in the details of any financial negotiations. I hope that this will reassure my noble friend and other Members of the House of the Government's consciousness of the great importance of this matter.