Football Betting Levy Board (Hansard, 10 June 1986)

§ Mr. Tom Pendry (Stalybridge and Hyde)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Football Betting Levy Board with powers to impose levies on football betting and to allocate such moneys for the benefit of association football. The Bill, if enacted, would give real and continuing financial backing to our national game of association football which, as the House knows, is suffering a decline not only on the playing fields of Mexico but here in the land that gave birth to the game of soccer. My proposal is not a new one. Its origins go back to 1968 when the first Chester report was published, and possibly before that. Its concept was endorsed by the Royal Commission on gambling 10 years later. It has many advocates both in the soccer world and in the House, as my list of sponsors will demonstrate.

It is undoubtedly true that soccer has moved on since Chester and Rothschild produced their reports. It continues to be a fact that football is in a parlous financial state. That is not helped by successive Governments' greed in levying taxes on the sport. The Bill would bring about a practical solution to many of the game's problems, in line with a philosophy that should commend itself to the Prime Minister—football helping itself.

There can be little doubt that the football pools' organisations are part of the football industry. The Government should be pleased that both exist, as the Government, against the advice of the Royal Commission on gambling, among others, increased its share of football's cake to 42.5 per cent. by way of betting duty in 1982. That was far in excess of that derived from horse racing or any other sport. The Rothschild report thought that a 40 per cent. tax was unfairly high. The yield to the Exchequer last year from such a levy was £221 million. That is certainly unfairly high.

A crisis is in the sport, and that is recognised by the Government. In fact, the Government's voice is probably among the loudest voices telling football that it must cope with its many problems but without doing much to assist it. The football world has moved on since Rothschild and Chester. Notably, and thankfully, the Football Trust and the Football Grounds Improvement Trust have been born. Both have done a great deal to fill a considerable part of the gap described in those reports. Both trusts are well respected. Many of those who support my proposal might have had second thoughts if the proposed levy board did not embrace the talents of those who currently administer those trusts. They should have no fears about that. I have no desire to impose on the sport a bureaucratic body with a structure that might be insensitive and costly to administer.

The pools promoters are anxious lest the current generous level of funding is used by a Chancellor of the Exchequer to fund the proposed levy board at the expense of their direct and indirect contributions. I recognise those fears. I would not wish to injure the genuine friends of football who over the years have done so much for the game. If we are to have a thriving football industry, Governments must not be greedy in their taxation policy, as they currently are. This measure would probably have been unnecessary if, over the years, Governments had not discriminated against the football pools punter.

180 Surely it cannot be right that the football pools alone have to pay the Chancellor 42.5p in every pound collected before expenses and prize money are taken into account. I envisage the board's funding coming from gambling on football. I hope that the Government will reduce the level of duty to help fund the board. If the Government reduced the level by 2.5 per cent. — the extra duty imposed in 1982, four years ago—about £5 million would be made. If the Chancellor eliminated VAT on spot-the-ball competitions, £4.5 million would be provided. Copyright payments for the use of football fixture lists would yield another £5.6 million. Without infringing overmuch on existing sources of funding, the football levy board would have more than £15 million to do what we all know is needed to enable our national game to survive into the 21st century.

Football has not enjoyed the same popularity within the higher echelons of Government as horse racing. Horse racing has an exclusive source of revenue through the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which does a good job for the sport. Soccer may not he the sport of kings, but it is our national sport, and it needs a shot in the arm.

The Horserace Betting Levy Board receives an income of about £21 million a year from the levy on bookmakers. Since 1980 the total income for that sport has been £96 million. There is a 10 per cent. betting levy on horse racing. Betting turnover is about £4 billion a year. It follows that horse racing is a much larger business than the football pools business which in 1984–85 had a turnover of £520 million, more than £200 million of which went hack to the Exchequer.

One could argue that there would be less need for my Bill if the Government recognised those facts. It is undoubtedly true that the Government take more from football than they put in. As a branch of the entertainment industry, football makes a substantial net contribution in VAT payments. Some clubs — small in number—pay corporate tax on profits. All make PAYE and DHSS contributions for their employees. Those payments plus the rates to local authorities and the cost of policing are a tidy sum. None of those payments is unique to football. What is unique is the high level of betting duty on the football pools money which is considered by those involved in football to be the football industry's money.

Football is being discriminated against, and is under-helped in relation to horse racing and the needs of football and wider participation in the sport. About I million play the game and more than that number watch it. We believe that our national game deserves a better deal. If the Bill is passed, we shall look to the football levy board to assist football to overcome many of its problems and to adopt a 21st century approach. We all want improvements with respect to grounds, the covering of terraces, the installation of more seating and adequate refreshment facilities. We need at least 12 new football stadia which are showpieces along 21st century lines. Imagine the World cup hosted by Britain. A national stadium in each home country is necessary. We have been told that, once more, Wembley will be given a facelift, but we shall believe that when we see it. We need closed circuit television on all grounds to combat the hooligan element.

I hope that the House will accept the arguments that I have outlined, not least because it is my birthday today, and that it will support my Bill.