HORSE RACE TOTALISATOR AND BETTING LEVY BOARDS BILL (Hansard, 7 August 1972)

§ Mr. Carlisle
Secondly, the hon. Member talked specifically about the time that I took up or wasted on Clause 5. Since the only Amendment that I moved on that Clause is being retained by Amendment No. 61, which transfers it to Clause 4, it does not appear that I wasted much time. Furthermore, since—according to my recollection—the hon. Member was not present when Clause 5 was debated, it is a little hard of him to accuse me of wasting time.
I do not propose to congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) because I do not believe that his conduct throughout the whole of the Bill merits his being congratulated.
1390 I made it clear at the time that the purpose of inserting Clause 5 was the need—as then envisaged—for the Totalisator Board to receive financial assistance from the Levy Board until it could take advantage of the opportunities of the Bill.
I also point out to the hon. Member for Accrington that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who was at that time deputising for him, said that the Opposition had expressed concern about Clause 5. I understood that it was the wish of the Opposition that if the Clause were found to be no longer necessary the Government should withdraw it.
In fairness, I cannot tell the hon. Member what the final situation will be, since the accounts of the Totalisator Board have not yet been laid before Parliament, but I can say that the outcome for the financial year shows a healthier situation than that which the Government envisaged when the Clause was introduced. I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Mancroft would be the first to accept that these accounts relate to a period before he occupied the chair, but he will welcome the comments that have been made about him although he has no direct responsibility for those accounts. The fact remains that, as I understand, the accounts will show a modest profit for the year, against the statements made that they were likely to show a substantial loss and had shown a loss in the previous year.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Over the years we have been accustomed, after the event, to find that Press leaks about the Government are invariably correct. Will the Minister confirm or deny that the Press leaks about the board's profit are right or wrong? He knows about the Press leaks. Can he say whether the board is in as healthy a state as is reported?

§ Mr. Carlisle
They are not Press leaks of the Government. The Totalisator Board is not a part of the Government. I confirm—if it is what the hon. Member wishes me to confirm—that the board's accounts show that it has made a reasonably modest profit during the previous year, as against the loss that at one stage was being forecast by the board. I should have thought that that would be welcomed. 1391 Secondly, I am bound to take account of the likely effect on profitability of decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of the Budget debate. The combination of these factors leads me to believe that short-term financial aid from the Levy Board will no longer be necessary. That is why I have removed Clause 5.
I can tell the hon. Member for Accrington that to the best of my knowledge—and despite what has been suggested—no agreement has been entered into between the bookmakers and the Totalisator Board. Certainly the circumstances of any agreement are a matter for the Tote Board and for those with whom it negotiates. Therefore, I can only say that within my knowledge no agreement has been entered into between them.
It has been drawn to my attention that, when winding up for the Opposition on 1392 Second Reading, the hon. Member for Accrington was very critical about Clause 5 and said that what he wanted to see was a position whereby the tote is reorganised on a firm businesslike footing so that it can, with the facilities provided by this Bill, go to the City and borrow money if necessary." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 790.] In other words, he did not think that Clause 5 was needed. I am happy to tell him that I am satisfied that that situation has been reached. Since it has been said that I have not been prepared to change my mind in view of the changing circumstances, I commend the new Clause and repeat, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard, that I was slightly surprised by the tone of his speech.