18. In section 133 of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation offers) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added—
(ff) arising out of a contravention, or alleged contravention, of paragraph 10 of Schedule 4A to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963".'.
§ Mr. Paice
The effect of new clause 1 is to remove from the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 the ban on licensed betting offices opening to the public on Sundays. It also introduces into that Act a schedule of employee protection.
The impact, however, of the new clause would be to allow betting offices to open on Sundays, thus enabling horse racing to take place on Sundays. I should make it absolutely clear to the House that it will also enable greyhound racing to take place. I do not pretend to know very much about greyhound racing, so I shall leave it to other hon. Members to discuss in more detail, but I understand that the industry would benefit considerably and I have received a letter from the British Greyhound Racing Board expressing its support.
In the seven years that I have been a Member of Parliament, there have been three earlier attempts to allow Sunday racing to take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, introduced a Bill, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), and then my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) took over the Bill of the noble Lord Wyatt. All failed—probably inevitably, given the constraints on private Members' legislation and because other aspects of Sundays had not been resolved by the House. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to my three hon. Friends for their pioneering work in raising the profile of the issue so that the industry was in a better position to address some of the problems before coming to the House tonight to try once more.
It is also important at this stage to point out to the House that considerable discussion has taken place within the industry over the past four months since I first conceived the idea of using the deregulation Bill as a vehicle for change. For all that time the hon. Member for Livingston 171 (Mr. Cook) has been involved in those discussions and has been most robust in his support for the principles, and I thank him for that.
Although I am conscious that in the past few days one or two voices in the industry have raised questions, I should make it clear that they have been involved and consulted for a considerable time before the new clause was tabled.
Some of my hon. Friends may be concerned at what might be seen an a stimulus to further betting and gambling. I make no secret of the fact that I do not share their criticism or concern, but I respect it. To that extent, it is important to review the law at the present time.
Although, in law, betting, gaming and lotteries are distinct forms of gambling, any survey of public opinion would find it extremely difficult to identify any difference in the public perception of them. All three are legal on Sundays, so a substantial amount of gambling already takes place.
It is perfectly legal for people to enter a casino on a Sunday and take part in all the activities of such places. It is also possible to bet on horse racing on Sundays. Anyone sufficiently well-off to have a credit account with a bookmaker can place bets by telephone on a Sunday on horse races taking place in a different country. I shall return to that point. People can play on an amusement-with-prizes machine—I prefer to call it a one-armed bandit—yet most people consider that to be gambling.
Perhaps the most important point is that when the national lottery is introduced in a few months, it will be perfectly legal to buy a ticket on a Sunday from any of the outlets. The national lottery has been approved and supported by both sides of the House, working on behalf of the Government.
That brings me to my final point on the issue of betting, which is that the Government are not a disinterested bystander—on the contrary, the Treasury receives a substantial tax revenue from betting, gaming and lotteries. The general betting duty alone raises almost £500 million a year.
I want to explain why I believe that there is a need to allow horse racing on Sundays. It will not have gone unnoticed that horse racing and, indeed, greyhound racing are the only major sports that do not currently take place on a Sunday. Football, cricket, golf, motor racing and horse trials all take place on Sundays and the vast majority of people recognise them as part of modern Sunday leisure activities. Therefore, horse racing is being discriminated against by being unable to compete in what is becoming an ever-more competitive leisure market.
I make it clear that, of all the major horse racing countries, Britain is the only one where horse racing does not take place on Sundays. In Ireland, France and Italy, the three other big racing nations in Europe—incidentally, all Catholic nations—horse racing with betting takes place on Sundays. Indeed, in Ireland, which is in its third season of Sunday racing, it is already possible to draw some conclusions. By holding the Irish Derby on a Sunday, while we hold our Derby on a Wednesday, their attendances have risen substantially whereas ours have 172 fallen dramatically because modern life styles mean that fewer and fewer people can afford to take a day off midweek.
Attendances in Ireland on a Sunday compare favourably with comparative Saturday fixtures. Perhaps more important, many of the racegoers on a Sunday are different from the usual racegoer. They include many more women and children and there is very much more of a family atmosphere—and that is extremely important to horse racing if it is to become even more of a mainstream sporting activity.
Why is betting necessary in order to have horse racing on Sundays? First, anyone who goes racing knows of the significant increased attraction and enjoyment from being able to put a small bet on a horse that might take one's fancy for any one of a number of reasons. Secondly, and far more significantly, the inherent desire of the British people to gamble and to bet on horses will always find an outlet. There is justifiable concern in Customs and Excise that unless there is an opportunity for legal betting, both on and off-course, there will be a mushrooming of illegal activity, just as there was before the 1963 legislation. For that reason, it has not been possible for me to separate on and off-course betting.
Finally, there is the matter of the horse race betting levy —the very significant contribution back into the racing industry that comes from the use of racing's product by the betting industry. There is no doubt that, with the advent of the national lottery, there will be some diversion of any money available for gambling and horse racing, so racing will lose. In Ireland, the lottery reduced betting turnover by 17 per cent. That is why I am anxious that Sunday racing should provide an alternative way of sustaining betting office turnover, which would be good both for racing and for the bookmakers.
§ Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)
My hon. Friend's point about support for the industry through betting is also a factor in the possible transfer of prize money to courses overseas. I know from representations from Sandown Park in my constituency that it is worried about that factor, which is why it supports what my hon. Friend is saying this afternoon.
§ Mr. Paice
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing the support from Sandown Park and Esher.
Over the past two years, three experimental race meetings have been held on Sundays to show the public exactly what a Sunday meeting could be like. Obviously, no cash betting could take place, although a small amount of credit betting occurred. The absence of cash betting severely damaged the quality of the racing, although the attendance was substantial.
What will happen if the new clause is passed? In the next two years, the British Horseracing Board will include in its fixture list a small number of Sundays. There will be no dramatic change; it is not intended that a sudden surge of Sunday meetings will take place all over the country. Britain has 59 racecourses, the vast majority of which would not be open on a Sunday. Many would never have Sunday meetings, while others would have just one or two. One has only to look at the Saturday fixture list to realise that most courses do not operate on Saturdays. And even if, in several years' time, Sunday racing becomes more 173 popular so that there is an overall increase in the fixture list, only a small number of Sunday meetings is likely to take place.
My final point concerns the new schedule of employment protection. I and my colleagues on both sides of the House who have tabled the new clause looked carefully at those who would be affected by the proposals. People who work in licensed betting offices and the staff of the Tote who work on and off course will be directly affected. Many others in the racing industry would also be affected: stable lads, jockeys, trainers, and horsebox drivers will work on Sundays, as will race course staff, officials, caterers and so on. But most of those already have Sunday work in their work rota. Stable lads, trainers, race course staff, officials and caterers often work on Sundays for a number of hours, although the new clause may increase that workload. Race course officials who do not have meetings at present may be involved in other activities on race courses on Sundays, such as antiques fairs, which take place on my local course of Newmarket.
In any event, most race courses will be closed on any one Sunday, so the only new group of employees who will be significantly affected will be the staff of betting offices and the Tote. That is why the new clause includes a new schedule of employment rights specifically for those staff.
I am aware of the concern of the Stable Lads Association, but the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which I seek to amend, is not the correct vehicle for addressing the concerns of the stable lads and to do so would not be in order. I assure the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who has just joined us, that I understand the stable lads' concerns. The British Horseracing Board will undertake to initiate discussions with employers to obtain appropriate improvements and changes to the terms and conditions that will be necessary for stable lads who will have to work longer hours and on some Sundays.
The new schedule in amendment No.1 sets out terms of employee protection identical to those provided for retail staff in the Sunday Trading Bill, which is currently in another place. I recognise that many bookmakers may be concerned at being singled out for employee protection, but I hope that they will understand not only the fact that the House is unlikely to approve the measure without employee protection, but that, under current law, the distinct group of people that I have described would not normally expect to have to work on a Sunday.
The Betting Office Licensees Association, which represents the large bookmakers, is also concerned that its staff should be seen as employees of the leisure industry, not the retail industry. That may well be the case; it is an extremely valid argument, but to make that change would require a substantial review of the entire legislation surrounding betting offices, and that is not the purpose of my proposals. It could be done only under the auspices of a specific Government Bill at some stage in future.
Why should the British public be the only racing nation unable to enjoy their sport on a Sunday? To allow betting to operate would enable many more people to participate in the sport, in which Britain and—I make no bones about it —many of my constituents have been, and will continue to be, pre-eminent. I believe that new clause 1 and the new schedule that I have tabled with it are workable. I do not pretend to be infallible, but if, as I am advised, certain 174 aspects of the schedule on employment protection need to be technically changed, I hope that the Government will agree to do that in another place.
I welcome the fact that hon. Members on both Front Benches have agreed to a free vote on new clause 1. That is extremely valuable and welcome. I very much hope that, on the back of that, the House will accept the new clause and give the racing public an opportunity to enjoy their sport on a Sunday.
§ Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)
I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South East (Mr. Paice) and congratulate him on the manner in which he presented his new clause and the reason with which he argued his case. Let me make it absolutely clear to him that I accept immediately that there is no reason why racing at race courses should not take place on a Sunday. It seems to me that it is a sport that many people appreciate, and there is no reason why those who are interested in it should be debarred from having race meetings on a Sunday when most other sports are able to continue. I understand also his argument that to have racing on a Sunday where there is no on-course betting makes it very difficult for the attraction, which is part of racing, to be complete. The whole of his argument on that is sincere and reasonable, and I accept it.
The only matter on which I have to begin to present an argument is for a considerable minority in this country —those who see a specific reason for trying to keep Sunday slightly special and who would find it somewhat unpleasant and unnecessary to have betting shops open in the high streets and villages throughout the country on a Sunday. That would happen because many of them are controlled by major national combines. There would be considerable resentment about that. My hon. Friend argued that, unless there was overall permission for betting to take place, both on and off course on a Sunday, it would be impossible for racing to proceed. I question that. He argued that that could not happen because Customs and Excise believes that, if betting shops were not to open, a great deal of illegal off-course betting would arise. That argument is somewhat dubious. It does not follow with the latter part of the case he made: that there would not be a major surge of meetings on a Sunday, and therefore there would not be a massive necessity to create an external factor in which betting can take place.
My hon. Friend admitted that many people—I believe that it is not just the rich, but many hundreds of thousands of people—have betting accounts. Many ladies in my constituency have betting accounts, watch the television and are delighted to place their small amount of money by telephone to the bookies. I see no reason why that should be banned. On the levy, it would not take much imagination on the part of the betting shops to prepare their betting slips to allow them to be used for a Sunday race as well for Saturday races so that those who wanted to bet on the Sunday schedule could quite easily do so on a Saturday without the shop having to open on a Sunday. They could collect their winnings on Monday.
I believe that it is the Home Office that has objected to the licensing of on-course betting, refusing to accept that it can be separated from off-course betting. I hope that, before they accept the new clause, the Government will give an undertaking to reconsider the matter and establish 175 whether it is possible to agree to the licensing of on-course betting and betting on account—which can take place anywhere—without necessarily allowing betting shops in every village in the country to open on Sunday. That would benefit those who want to enjoy Sunday racing and to bet on course, while not incurring the objections of a number of people—a minority, admittedly, but one of the largest minorities in the country: a Christian minority. Balancing those two interests would be greatly advantageous to the Government, while allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East to achieve his aims without hindering the racing community.
I do not accept the argument of some outside organisations that unless there is off-course betting the industry will be unable to adopt Sunday racing. As my hon. Friend explained, there will be no sudden surge: if courses are allowed to provide on-course betting on Sundays, we shall achieve the objective that both he and I want. As I said, I support him at least in part.
I hope that the Government—including the Home Office—will examine the matter again. I see no reason for rejecting the new clause. After all, if the illegal off-course betting industry increases, the Government can increase the penalties to deter people. I believe that we can accommodate both sides of the question sensibly and reasonably.
§ Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
I must declare an interest, as treasurer of the all-party group on racing and Woodstock. I have supported Sunday racing for many years; I have never been able to see the logic of allowing other sports to take place on Sundays while racing cannot. I have also been a strong supporter of on-course betting only, and—like the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)—I do not understand why the Home Office could not see the sense of such an arrangement. However, following extensive debate in the all-party group, I am aware that unless we take this opportunity to allow Sunday racing, we shall remain in a ridiculous position for many years. I therefore have to tell the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Mr. Paice) that I shall support the amendment—much to his surprise, I think—but I want the protection of workers' rights and of the additional payment for those who work on Sundays to be included in the Bill. If that protection is included, the hon. Gentleman shall have my strong support, although I also wish that there were racing with on-course betting only.
§ Mr. Michael Alison (Selby)
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) for not being here when he moved the new clause, but the debate on the earlier new clause and amendments was so rapid that I could not get here quickly enough. However, I arrived just in time to hear him express some very helpful sentiments in connection with stable lads in particular. I shall detain the House for a few moments to highlight the new clause's implications for stable lads. It is not my hon. Friend's fault, but stable lads are perforce excluded from the employment protection measures proposed in amendment No. 1 to benefit those who work in betting shops.
There is no automatic employment protection for the 8,000 to 10,000 people employed in the racing industry, for either the 6,000 or so who work in the various types of stables or the 3,000 or so employed as breeders and transport staff. Mr. W. A. J. Adams, the national secretary 176 of the Stable Lads Association, has outlined a vivid scenario of what will happen to staff at a typical stable, who do not at present work have to do much work on a Sunday, if there is regular Sunday racing on a large scale.
Mr. Adams cites the example of a stable yard with 40 horses which is adequately staffed with a ratio of one lad to three horses. Let us assume that on alternate weekends only six or seven members of staff are on duty at the yard to look after the 40 horses. As a result of the new clause, two Sunday races could be scheduled suddenly—one at Ayr and one at Newbury. If the trainer or owner has engaged one horse to run at Ayr, the distance between Ayr and the yard will mean that two of the seven rostered weekend staff will have to travel on Saturday to get to Ayr on time, leaving a depleted weekend contingent of five to work on Saturday evening.
If the owner is exerting pressure to have a runner at Newbury as well as Ayr, another two members of the weekend staff will have to leave first thing on Sunday morning, thus leaving a weekend contingent of three at the yard to look after the remaining 38 horses. It will almost certainly lead to the trainer ordering staff who are rostered off duty to cover for staff away at the races. Therefore, staff will lose the valuable time off that they usually expect to have at the weekend. Of course, the yard may also have horses running on Monday, in which case they would need exercising on Sunday and the staff may have to leave for the races on Sunday afternoon, thus depleting the Sunday care and maintenance staff even further.
Such a scenario would have a profound effect on the life and lot of stable lads. Their life and lot is not one of exotic, plutocratic wealth or high standards of living. They are, in fact, a vulnerable and low-paid sector of the work force. They typically work one weekend in two, with five hours' overtime. In 1991, a lad aged 19 received £144 a week as a minimum consolidated wage. The idea that, because of the extra pressure caused by Sunday working, the key staff will be increased—or that numbers will be "staffed up", as the saying goes in the trade—is a myth. The key staff on which the training of racehorses depends are usually over 25 years of age, married and very difficult to replace. There is already a drop-out from the industry of those aged 23 years and over, with the anti-social hours and low pay creating difficulties for married couples. A move towards Sunday racing without protection from being forced to work on Sundays will inevitably increase that trend.
In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East has said already and in view of my own brief contribution to the debate, I hope that he will see that it is constructive, helpful and wise to do everything possible to ensure that stable lads and those connected with training stables will not be affected adversely. Life in training stables will have to change in order to put stable lads on reasonably even terms with those who are employed in betting shops for whom my hon. Friend is trying to get a better deal.
I believe that it is in the interests of the horse racing industry to offer a new deal to stable lads and those associated with them in the context of what my hon. Friend is trying to do in his amendment. If my hon. Friend will confirm that he will put all his moral and mental force behind improving the lot of stable hands in the face of many extra Sunday racing events, I will take everything that he said at face value and give him my full support and credit for what he is trying to do. But my support for his 177 amendment is conditional on the fact that he will go to town and secure at least as good a deal for stable lads as he is trying to secure for those who work in betting shops.
§ Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton)
I intend to speak very briefly to the new clause as I suspect that the vast majority of hon. Members have already made up their minds about this issue. Nevertheless, it is important for me to put on record the reasons why I shall be voting against the new clause.
This debate is a conjunction of two very serious debates which have taken place in the Chamber in recent times —on the National Lottery Bill, when we explored the ethics of gambling, and the Sunday Trading Act 1993. Those debates caused great consternation on both sides of the House.
I was bemused to hear the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) make some kind of causal link between catholicity and an enthusiasm for gambling. I thought that that was very odd. As a Catholic, I am virulently opposed to gambling—but on a pragmatic basis. My opposition is not a matter of religious conviction; I oppose gambling simply because 1: look around and I see brothers, relatives and friends for whom gambling is an addictive disease. I have learnt that lesson over many years and it is one of the reasons why I shall be opposing the new clause tonight. I do not take any high moral ground; I oppose it simply on the basis of my own experience.
I view with some amusement the notion that the bookies will somehow end up in the poorhouse if we do not open the betting shops on Sundays. In my part of the world we used to say that there was no such thing as a thin bookie. Perhaps I would fit the part myself if I were that way inclined.
I have three simple reasons for opposing the new clause. First, I have little time for horse racing. I think that it is controlled by members of a certain class with a certain level of wealth who run it as a private club. I have no truck with it, although many members of my family, my party and my constituents would take great exception to that point. But that is my view and I hold by it.
If I have little time for the horse racing industry, I do not give a tinker's damn about bookmakers and the money that they fleece from people throughout the country in one way or another. I will give no succour to bookmakers at any point. So far as I am concerned, to encourage gambling at any level is another nail in the coffin of society as we know it. In my view, gambling is a sickness which ought to be treated and not encouraged.
My second reason for voting against the new clause is that it will do further damage to families with a gambling problem. I am no moral arbiter for families in my constituency or anywhere else, but I know what will happen to many people I have seen for whom the only respite at present is a Sunday, because during the week the man of the house—or, increasingly, the woman of the house—spends all day in the betting shop. We all know that that happens.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East talked about turning betting shops into leisure centres.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
Or perhaps he said that betting shops should be regarded as part of the leisure industry—I think that he would accept that—but betting shops are really nothing but money-grinding machines for the bookies.
Thirdly, I oppose the new clause because I do not believe that the interests of the employees of the thousands of betting shops throughout the country will be protected. I am not convinced by the protestations of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East about the new schedule that he said would be added to protect employees' interests. Such measures have not worked before, and they will not work now. When the pressure is on, people who work part time in betting shops will face a clear choice: work on Sundays or be out of a job.
§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on his sterling work, and on the weight that he, as chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock committee, has borne on his shoulders in introducing the new clause and in promoting the interests of horse racing. My hon. Friend and I share an interest in horse racing. Although we represent different ends of the country, both our constituencies are important breeding and horse race training centres of excellence. I am in no doubt that the future of our horse racing industry will be enhanced by Sunday racing. That, above all else, is why I support it, and therefore why I support the new clause.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) asked why we require off-course as well as on-course betting. The Home Affairs Select Committee considered that question in detail when we inquired into the levy and the tote. In our report we recommended Sunday racing, but with on-course betting only. We cast our concerns on the strength of the argument about whether, if betting shops were closed, there would be illegal gambling. That was not the experience in Ireland. Three years later, however, having thought a great deal more about the subject, I believe that we need off-course as well as on-course betting. I will give my right hon. Friend two reasons why.
First, restricting betting to the course is fine for people who go to the race course, but if there were a meeting in Newbury, people who live in North Yorkshire and are involved in the racing industry there would not be able to go to Newbury, bet on the race, watch it as a live spectacle and collect their winnings, or whatever. In horse racing —and betting is a crucial part of the sport—we should have a national picture; everyone should be able to join in. If we closed the betting shops it would not be the wealthy who would lose, but the ordinary working man. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) was concerned about that. The ordinary working man, who has not got a telephone account with Ladbroke's or Coral's —in my opinion, for the reasons described by the hon. Member for Walton, perhaps he ought not to have one—would lose.
The second reason for having off-course betting is one that I mentioned earlier. I believe that over time it would boost the viability and prosperity of horse racing. That is what we all want to see. The crucial ingredient in that process is the levy, which comes from off-course rather than on-course betting. If one considers the Grand National, for example, the loss of that one race last year 179 meant that the levy was the poorer by some £750,000. We want some of the classic races which at present are raced on a Tuesday, a Wednesday or perhaps a Thursday with not only low attendances but relatively low turnover in the betting shop, to take place at the weekend. There are enough of them on Saturdays. The Saturday fixtures are full. We want some of them raced on a Sunday. We shall then see a bigger betting turnover and a bigger levy as a consequence. That does not in any way mean that there will be more racing.
§ Mr. Greenway
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) says that we have blown it, but there is undoubtedly an opportunity for more people to take part in racing in their leisure time at the weekend—on Saturday and Sunday—than when they are on the factory floor or in the office from Monday to Friday.
§ Sir Peter Emery
To help clarify his argument, would my hon. Friend mind telling me how many classic races on the flat are held on a Saturday and if they are not, why they are not?
§ Mr. Greenway
A number of classics are raced on a Saturday—such as the St. Leger, which is raced over a mile and a half. The 2000 Guineas is raced on a Saturday. The Derby is raced on a Wednesday and the off-course betting turnover is much lower than, say, that of the Grand National. I believe that there would be a higher turnover if it were raced on a Sunday.
The next question to ask is how many races.
§ Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central)
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. Earlier, we were told that there was no intention of over-stimulating weekend racing, that we would barely notice the difference for quite a few years and that it would all be very gentle. I suspect that my hon. Friend is letting the cat quietly out of the bag. He is saying that he wants the classics to be raced not just at the weekend, but specifically on a Sunday when a lot of people have more free time to get involved. However, that is also the precious free time that many Conservative Members want to preserve.
§ Mr. Greenway
That is up to my hon. Friend. If he wants to sit at home with his feet up in front of the fire on a Sunday afternoon, that is entirely up to him. He may choose to watch the racing or the football or to watch the repeat of "Coronation Street". Many working people are denied the choice of going to some of the classic races because they are raced on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. There is a three-day, mid-week meeting at York, and the Oaks trial has been run this afternoon in the past couple of hours. How many people who support racing can go to York races on a Tuesday afternoon?
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) anticipated the point to which I was coming. We are not talking about racing every Sunday—certainly not for the foreseeable future. We are not even talking necessarily about any extra race meetings. We are talking about some 180 race meetings which are currently held mid-week, including some of the classic races, being raced on a Sunday instead. All that we would be doing—
§ Mr. Greenway
I have already given way three times in what I had hoped would be a fairly short speech. All that we want to do is to improve the finances of racing. The Treasury recognised the importance of that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor certainly recognised that by reducing betting duty to stimulate the amount of money which could go back into racing, which is extremely important.
When every other major international and national sport takes place on a Sunday, we cannot expect to maintain a viable, long-term racing industry if one of the two main leisure days is denied to that industry by not having racing on Sunday. This is a unique opportunity for the House to put right a wrong that has existed for far too long. I therefore hope that the House will support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East.
§ Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh)
First, I declare my interest in the issue. I am vice-chairman of the leisure and recreation industry group. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) rightly and sincerely made some valid points about the way in which addiction to gambling can come from licensed betting shops. The all-party racing and bloodstock committee would, of course, condemn any growth in such addiction.
In the past 10 years, social trends have changed rapidly. There are 10 million households in which the man and wife both work, and one or both may work on Saturdays or Sundays. A problem arises in relation to leisure. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Walton that when, as chairman of the all-party group, I address conferences such as the clubs' annual conference, I make it clear that there is no such thing as a benevolent brotherhood of bookmakers, bankers and brewers, although they are all obviously interested in the leisure and racing industries.
Leisure has become an integral part of racing. Racing is a real and large industry, which is dependent on the leisure industry. Only last week, Haydock Park had model exhibitions, fairs and May day celebrations—non-political in content—to supplement the income from racing. Increasingly, there is dual usage, with football pitches or even rugby pitches in the centre of race courses. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What about fishing?] Fishing or anything else will do. It is all part and parcel of our social network. It is imperative that there is support for the increase in activity that is envisaged over the next 10 or 15 years.
There is now freedom from the Sunday trading laws, despite the Lord's day observance societies and religious convictions. I say with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, who has the same religion as I do, that I go to mass on Saturday evening. Saturday is no longer the permanent shopping day and it will change further as the years go on. I have the right to follow my religious practice on Sunday morning, Sunday evening or Saturday night. My hon. Friend has the same right and I know that he uses it. That is a commendation in every sense of the word.
The present position discriminates against racing. Let us consider sports ranging from motor racing to model aeroplane flying, cricket or tennis. There is betting on 181 rugby in my part of the world every Sunday. The odds are set out on coupons, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walton knows something about coupons because he has pools offices in his constituency. The pools are a mild form of gambling—a friendly flutter.
Why does the punter bet? Why does he go into a betting shop? He is not there to drink diet coke or to play the machines that everyone is arguing about. The ordinary, average racing punter believes that he has expertise. He believes that if he studies the form, makes his assessment and reads all the papers, he will beat the bookmaker. That is entirely his business. If one goes into Stratton Ground market any morning, one sees the dear ladies nipping in to put a bob or two not only on horse racing, but on greyhound racing, which ought to be covered by the Bill. That is all part and parcel of a trend in leisure. It is not a question of addiction; professional gamblers are different from the ordinary punter. We should be aware of the changing times.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) said that the pools were a form of gambling and I noticed that some Conservative Members seemed to agree. Those of us who were members of the Committee which considered the National Lottery etc. Bill were told that the pools were a game of skill rather than gambling. I ask my hon. Friend to make a distinction. There is what happens on a course, including getting the maximum use from it and financing it. I understand the problem; as my hon. Friend pointed out, it applies to many different activities. That is different from the bookies crying out in the sticks because they will make an absolute fortune through the betting shops opening on Sunday. Sunday opening will increase the amount of gambling and will not shift gambling from mid-week.
§ Mr. Cunliffe
I have no scruples about the point made by my hon. Friend. I would tax the bookies' income further and further. For years and years, they have not made a substantial enough contribution to the industry through the levy. I would back my hon. Friend tooth and nail in saying that the bookies should make a greater contribution. If their income increases, they must pay more and at a higher rate. The matter will have to be looked at and I hope that the new horse racing board, the relevant Ministers—the matter may require the Home Secretary's decision—and all those involved will take note of our point. I accept that there is a difference between those who have a flutter and the professional punter.
§ Mr. Dennis Turner (Wolverhampton, South-East)
To take up my hon. Friend's point about greyhound racmg, my understanding is that the new clause would embrace greyhound racing on Sunday. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are talking not just about horse racing, but about greyhound racing?
§ Mr. Cunliffe
I am talking about what is encompassed in the Bill. Because I was away last week at the Council of Europe, I have not had time to study the Bill in detail, but I accept that it would be wrong to discriminate between the greyhound racing industry and the horse racing industry. We swould give the Minister 100 per cent. support if he were receptive to the suggestion that greyhound racing should be included.
§ Mr. Paice
I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman in relation to greyhounds. I have a letter here from the British Greyhound Racing Board which says:greyhound racing would like to be treated in precisely a similar manner as horse racing. We are pleased to see that new Clause I as drafted would indeed have that effect.I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Lord
The hon. Gentleman talked about social trends and the way in which we had to go with the tide. Does he not acknowledge that the House has some part to play in the way in which the tide flows? Does he also take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that some of us have great difficulty with this matter? There is the question of allowing racing, and all that happens at the course, and there is the impact of betting shops being open on Sundays in all the towns and villages in the country. That is the difficulty for us.
§ Mr. Cunliffe
I understand the difficulty. As with the national lottery, it is not possible to forecast precisely the trends about which the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central and the right hon. Member for Honiton are concerned. Our friends the bookies are crying their eyes out because they claim that the national lottery will take 10 per cent. of their income. That is absolute nonsense. The bookies can do all the market research in the world. The punter—the professional boy—will be there and the amateur punter will be there anyhow. It will be his wife who will put a couple of quid on the lottery. The bookmakers bellyache all the time. Everyone knows that no one can accurately forecast the effect of the national lottery, and no one should have the effrontery to say what the effect on income and social trends of Sunday racing will be.
I welcome the initiative by the all-party racing and bloodstock group. I—and my forefathers before me—condemned the exclusive Jockey Club. No one could remove the veil over its decision-making. We had no input and the Jockey Club did not like intrusions. That has gone. Thank goodness for the initiative that has come from the new board and especially from Lord Hartington. That initiative has been complimented by the whole industry.
We now have an established horse racing board which can balance all the elements of the industry; it has balanced the elements correctly on this occasion. Whether it means the bookies paying more or somebody else paying less, the board is opening new doors to bring democracy and, for the first time, accountability to the job. That was unheard of in the past, but that is what we are doing today. All those people with worries, fears and anxieties are not necessarily wrong. I would not say that; it would be too presumptuous. There is a concern. It is up to us to manage it correctly and to demand accountability where it is required.
§ Mr. Jopling
I shall begin by declaring two interests: first, there is a minute number of shares in a northern race course which have my name on them, although I have no beneficial interest whatever from them; and, secondly, I have the honour of being president of the Auto Cycle Union, which is the governing body of all motor cycle sport in this country.
183 Having said that, I shall explain to the House why I think that the new clause is wrong. As I am president of the Auto Cycle Union, I have no objection whatever to horse racing—we can have as many horse races as we like on Sunday. But listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) saying that he did not think that there would be many race meetings on Sunday, and then listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who said that he wanted to see the 1,000 and 2,000 Guineas and perhaps the Oaks, the Derby and the Cheltenham gold cup run on Sunday, there seemed to be a slight inconsistency.
All that I can say is that my instinct is that if we have horse racing on Sunday, many race courses will wish to have meetings when they can attract big groups and where there will be a lot of public interest on television and in other ways. I suppose that many important races will gravitate to Sundays. I do not mind that in the least. However, we are not really talking about horse racing or greyhound racing specifically in the new clause; we are talking about betting on Sunday and we should confine ourselves to that.
I was interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said. We are extremely close friends, but I did not know that he had similar views to mine on this particular matter. Over many years—I have been in the House for almost 30 years—when I have received letters from my constituents urging me to keep Sunday special, I suppose that I have irritated a great many of them by saying that in general people should be allowed to do what they want on Sunday. However, I have always said that there are certain aspects of Sunday which should not be changed. I can think of no single thing that would make Sunday more like any other day than to introduce betting on Sunday.
I have always specifically said to my constituents that I would oppose betting on Sunday. Over the years, I have watched as a greater amount of gambling has crept into our way of living. We now have casinos—I was never especially happy about that. We have the lottery—I have never been a huge enthusiast for that. However, I have not got up in the House and opposed them. But when it comes to this final measure to extend gambling in this country to Sundays, I am opposed to it.
I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said about gambling and the extent to which it is a disease. I am sure that all hon. Members know families and individuals who have ruined their lives because of gambling. Therefore, we need to draw the line somewhere, and my line is drawn at this point. I hope that the House will follow my view that we have enough gambling already—and let us have no more of it.
§ Mr. Donald Anderson
I follow the wise words of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that just as Members of Parliament should not simply follow tides, look at social trends and move along with those trends, it is also our duty to see the direction in which those trends are taking us and to ask whether the social effects are adverse or positive.
Although I must confess that I have been torn in different directions on the new clause, the decisive element for me is that which has been highlighted by the right hon. 184 Gentleman—that this is effectively a betting on Sunday clause. I confess that I know little about horse racing. I have been to only one race in my life and that was with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at a by-election. He did his best to explain horse racing to me, but I am afraid that he failed miserably.
I look at the Bill in the light of my views on Sunday. I was a patron of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. Much of the destruction of the pillars of Sunday will have adverse social effects. The enhancement of betting will change Sunday not only for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)—that it is addictive—but because it will alter the character of Sunday.
When we waged the Keep Sunday Special campaign, one of the exceptions was leisure and sport. If one simply had the prospect of horses racing along a track, which is a fine country pursuit, no one could possibly take any great exception to that. However, what is at issue is not horse racing as such; rather, it is the industry behind it. We must look at the interests that are mobilised in favour of the Bill. They are not interests with which I would necessarily like to be linked.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) described the interests as those of the betting and racing industries. Those are large groups, which will have a substantial effect on Sunday. My hon. Friend said that it would be absurd simply to have on-course betting—his analogy was that, if there is a meeting in Newbury, his constituents in North Yorkshire should not be denied the opportunity of betting on that meeting. However, they will have an opportunity of betting six days of the week if they so want.
If horse racing is the motive, let the horse race take place. Why should the betting industry, which will be mobilised to support that, disturb and have an effect on and implications for each town throughout the country? Those are the interests that hide behind the new clause. They may say that it is like the nursemaid saying, "Madam, it is only a little baby at the moment." There will always be a slide, and continual creeping.
When the debate began, I confess that I did not realise that it related not only to horse racing but to greyhound racing as well. I concede that there is a certain logic in that —there is no easy way to differentiate between them. But this goes on and on and all the old landmarks which give Sunday some value will be eradicated and we shall worship mammon again in a massive way, simply by bowing to those who say that it suits their financial interests. That is wrong and I shall vote against the new clause because of the gambling implication.
In addition, I note the rather naive plea by the sponsors of the Bill for adequate employee protection. They say that they have lifted from the Sunday Trading Bill exactly the same fine protections as are available to those who work in supermarkets on Sunday. If the protections in the Sunday Trading Bill are adequate, anyone who practises law—I am a sort of lapsed lawyer; once upon a time I did some employment law—knows how inadequate are the remedies available to employees in industrial tribunals, as well as the fact that there is no reinstatement, that the onus of proof is on them, and the other catalogue of disadvantages which we discussed at great length on the Sunday Trading Bill. Some of my colleagues are naive if they think that those whom we are trying to protect should be prepared to 185 accept, as though it were a great triumph, exactly the same package of protection which—those colleagues claim—was so adequate in the Sunday Trading Bill.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) mentioned the inadequacy of the provisions that have been lifted from the Sunday Trading Bill, but there is an enormous swathe of people—stable lads and others—who will have their working lives mightily affected by the Bill. However, they will in no way be brought within the protection—however inadequate—which is contained in the new clause.
On two grounds—the massive encouragement that will be given to the powerful interests of the gambling industry and the inadequate employment protection—I will certainly be ready to vote against the new clause.
§ Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who has effectively sponsored the amendment and has played such an important part in the fortunes of the racing industry. He and I have the privilege of sharing the town and surrounding area of Nevvmarket —the racing capital of the world—in our constituencies.
I shall speak on one or two things and, first, employment. There has been a severe recession in the racing industry which we are now coming out of. About 30,000 people are employed directly in horse racing, and if we take all the ancillary services, we are talking about a total of some 100,000 people. As an employer, and as a potential employer, the potential change is very important.
Patterns of leisure have changed and every leisure industry needs the opportunity to adjust to that change. That has happened with other industries. Betting and racing are inextricably bound up. It is simply madness that one can go gambling legally in this country in a casino on a Sunday. Another absurd anomaly is that somebody can bet, using a form of credit, on a race meeting in another part of the world. These are things which make the present law look utterly foolish.
Only off-course betting is subject to a levy which is used to finance racing. Without that off-course betting, Sunday racing's viability is weakened. The increase in betting turnover and levy payments will certainly help racing's finances. There are important spillover effects of the change. Prize money is still too low in this country and, of course, some of the levied funds are used for research into equines to fight disease and improve health. Comprehensive research will be helped by the increase in moneys going into the industry.
It is vital that we maintain the reputation of the British bloodstock industry as the finest in the world from the points of view of health, research and everything else. The British Sunday has changed, and it is now a leisure day. The amendment effectively recognises that and brings the racing industry into a competitive position with other leisure industries. It is good for racing's revenues, good for employment and, yes, it is even good for the Treasury.
§ Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)
I do not believe that the argument has been made for Sunday racing on the grounds of producing another area of leisure activity for the majority of people in this country. I do not believe that the majority of people fail to attend race tracks because the meetings are held in the middle of the week. I believe that they fail to attend because they cannot afford 186 the fare to the racecourse, the entrance fee, car parking charges or what seem to be astronomically high charges for refreshments.
The essential part which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) clarified was that the amendment is attempting to support the bloodstock and racing industry via the betting shop. I oppose the idea of off-track betting on Sunday, for two essential reasons. Of the 40,000 to 50,000 people employed in that industry, most are women. I cannot believe that they will find it easy to facilitate their duties as women within the home if they have to work on Sundays, as well as the six other days of the week.
I regret that I do not believe that the supposed work protection in the Sunday Trading Bill is any kind of protection at all. Evidence has been furnished by a cashier who worked for William Hill that, when evening racing came into being, employees were expected to work infinitely longer hours. If they did not accept those longer hours, they were instantly dismissed. Managers were expected to work from 10 am until 10 pm without any break, and certainly without any increase in remuneration. I do not believe that that position will be altered dramatically for the majority of women who work in betting shops.
We are hearing the paradoxical argument more and more in the House that, while everyone must have choices, we preclude increasing numbers of our citizens by forcing them to work on Sunday. Their choice seems to be totally and utterly negated.
I make my second point on behalf of my constituents. The majority of high street betting shops—certainly in my constituency—are located very close to where people live. They are underneath blocks of flats, and are in streets close to terraced houses. I would not wish to paint a picture of the British punter as incapable of placing a bet without a can of alcoholic liquid in his or her hand. The majority of people who like to have a little flutter by no means behave in that way. However, I have noticed an increasing tendency for people who become increasingly inebriated during the day to find their favourite spot outside the betting shop, be it on the pavement, on the doorstep next door or leaning on the wall of the betting shop. It seems particularly hard that my constituents will suffer that nuisance and harassment every day of the week if the amendment goes through.
I strongly endorse the arguments which have been made on both sides of the House that there is something special about Sunday. Even though legislation has been passed which seems to have essentially destroyed that special nature of Sunday, we should reject the amendment.
§ Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale)
It should be said that the horse racing industry is undoubtedly part of the leisure industry. Cinemas are open on Sunday, people go to motor racing on Sunday and thousands of people go to football matches on Sunday. There have been cricket matches on Sunday for as far back as I can remember, and there are golf matches on Sunday. Nobody objects to that at all. I wonder why an exception is made for horse racing.
If there is horse racing on Sunday, it could be in many cases a good family outing. Where I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) is that I would get no pleasure at all if I went to a horse race meeting and did not have a bet or a little flutter. That is part of the fun. [Interruption.] The hon. 187 Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) is laughing because he knows all too well that I am known as the bookie's friend.
I must also declare an interest in that I am a consultant to the National Association of Bookmakers. I sometimes wonder whether I was appointed to that post because I had given them so much money. My father always used to criticise me for betting, but I inherited it from him. From when I was a child, I remember my father putting bets on. In those days, there were no betting shops and he had to take his bet to a bookie's runner, who then took it to somebody else. If the runner was caught in the process, he was put in court and fined. One reason why the law was changed in the 1960s was to stop all that.
My father always said that getting one winner was hard enough. I do things like yankees—where one picks four horses—heinz, canadians and super bets.
§ Sir Fergus Montgomery
No, I do not. That is the whole point.
In response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), I do not bet with the mortgage or housekeeping money. For my sins, many years ago I smoked, but I have stopped smoking. I suppose that I now spend on gambling the money that I used to spend on cigarettes. Perhaps the money goes to a better cause—to the bookies rather than to the tobacco manufacturers. [Interruption.] My money does go up in smoke.
I do multi-bets because, during an Ascot season in the 1960s, a man put on a half-crown yankee—that shows how long ago it was—at the betting shop I went to, and he won over £1,000. The following day, the betting shop put the bet on its notice board and said, "How's this for luck?" Ever since the 1960s it has been my dream that one day my betting slip would be held up in a betting shop and someone would say, "How's this for luck?" It has not happened yet, but I live in hope.
If no betting is allowed at the courses, there will be illegal betting. That is the very thing that we tried to stamp out all those years ago. If people want to bet, they will find a way to do so.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
Will the hon. Gentleman make a distinction between betting on course and opening betting shops all round the country? We have heard the arguments about the levy and the way in which the money filters through, but the hon. Gentleman knows, as I know, that the money would go to the bookies first and foremost. Why cannot a distinction be made between the course where the meeting is being held and bookies the length and breadth of the country?
§ Sir Fergus Montgomery
That point was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). He said that if a race meeting was held on a Sunday in the south it would be difficult for someone from the north to go to the course. At least if the betting shops are open, someone who takes an interest in horse racing can have a flutter.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that not all bookmakers are rich. A long time ago, my father started out as a bookmaker. The result went wrong in the 188 Manchester handicap. The horse that he wanted to win lost by a short head. So from being prosperous when I was a child, my family was no longer prosperous and my father had to go back to the factory and eke out a living there. Bookmakers take a risk. If the favourites come in regularly, the bookmakers do not have a good day. The bookies like the outsiders to win. That is why they like me to win. I back outsiders. Perhaps that is because I am a Conservative.
The horse racing industry is part of the leisure industry and we cannot continue to treat it differently to the rest of the leisure industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East on moving the new clause and I hope that the House will approve it.
§ Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) told us of his great desire that some day he might see his winning bet up in a shop. He should take into consideration all the money that he will have lost from the day he started to bet until the day he has his bet put up in a shop. There is no doubt that, with more outlets for gambling, this nation is suffering loss among many of its people. I serve a working-class congregation. I have served for 48 years among the teeming thousands of east Belfast. I know the heartache and the heartbreak that has come to decent working-class homes as a result of gambling and betting. As the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) said, the new clause is about betting.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) told us about the bellyaching of the bookies. We are here discussing the matter because of the bellyaching of the bookies. The influence of big gambling linked to horse racing is pushing the matter to the fore in the House of Commons. If that big gambling interest did not exist, the bellyaching of the bookies would not be listened to. I have many bookies in my constituency. They are always bellyaching and telling me, "You know, we are not making money." One has only to look at their homes and the type of life that they live to give the lie to what they are bellyaching about. Their main desire is more money and more money, no matter what way they get it.
The House cannot have it both ways. We have been told by some today that everyone should have a free choice. I believe in that. I believe that on Sundays people should do what they want to do. They stand before their maker. For myself, I believe that I have to keep the Sabbath day holy. That is my religious conviction and I practise it, but I cannot say to any other man that he must keep Sunday as I do. He will answer to the great God on the day of judgment.
People talk about choice, but they do not give any choice to the people who will be employed so that they can have their sport, their pleasure and their leisure activity. They do not care about taking a husband from his family, a mother from her family, a son from his family, or a daughter from her family on Sunday and making those people work to give them pleasure. What I ask for myself, I am prepared to give to everyone else. I say that employees should have a choice. Let no one believe that the bellyaching bookies will give better positions, a better rate of pay and better working conditions to the people they employ. They will employ those people at the same miserable rates at which they employ them now. Let us be clear about that.
189 5.15 pm
We have heard it said today that the legislation on Sunday opening will safeguard employees. I have received complaint after complaint already from many of my constituents that they are told, "It is best for you not to object to working on Sunday." One firm in my city is offering a 50 per cent. discount on any article that employees want to buy if they will work on Sundays. If they object to working on Sundays, they will not have that discount. Let us not think in the House today that the safeguards in the Sunday trading legislation will protect the people who work on the racecourses, in the stables and in the betting shops. Have they been asked? Some hon. Members who have spoken today give the impression that they can speak with authority on behalf of those people. Surely they should be asked what they want and desire on Sundays.
I find that the best thing for a family on Sunday is to be all together and to have a time when they can talk over the matters that tie the family together. If it is their will to go to the house of God on Sunday, I would say that that is what they should be doing, but I have only the power of persuasion. We can only persuade people to do it. That is the only power we have. If people do not do it, it is their loss. It is a sad loss because it takes away the cement of the family. Anything that takes away the cement of the family today and pulls down the bricks of the family is dangerous today for many of the bricks are already falling out and much of the cement has been taken away. Therefore, tonight my colleagues and I will vote against the new clause.
§ Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)
Many things are vital to the well-being of our nation. However, ii: would stretch the imagination very far to suggest that the social fabric of our society would be threatened if the House rejected new clause 1. Unfortunately, one must admit that much of the moral fabric of our society and nation is under attack and has been under attack by legislation passed both in Europe and in the House. It is no wonder that our nation is in many ways going down the drain. Surely it is time that we drew a line. Surely the House has a right to give a lead to the nation.
Many people recognise the growth of betting addiction. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) spoke of his father's warning about the bets that he was placing. His father had not set a proper example. As a pastor, I find this rather interesting, as I know that multitudes of fathers—even Members of the House—have learnt from their own behaviour and have warned their families not to make the same mistake. Surely that is what a father ought to do. The suggestion that a person should not to warn his son of such dangers is rather strange. Many a person who has ended up as a drunkard on the street would be happy to warn his son not to take the same route. People with love in their hearts will warn their offspring of the dangers.
I am amazed by hon. Members' use of the word "flutter" to describe betting. It makes the activity sound very innocent, whereas the reality is that in many homes the money that should be spent on bread and clothes flutters away, and the children are left to pay the very sad price. The suggestion that gambling is an innocent activity about which one need not be concerned is far from the reality to be found in housing estates and towns in our constituencies.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
Does the hon. Gentleman know that many unemployed people are wickedly exploited by the betting industry? I refer in particular to caterers who bus in, over great distances, unemployed people who have no hope of other employment. For example, people are brought from areas of relatively high unemployment, like Newport, and are paid disgracefully low wages. Virtually all those workers are women. Surely it is right to oppose this new clause, which would do something about the vultures involved in catering for the racing industry, who exploit the misery of the unemployed.
§ Rev. William McCrea
I wholeheartedly agree. There are indeed vultures ready to take advantage of people in the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described. It is amazing that some hon. Members who ought to know better are not raising their voices in defence of these people.
We have heard it said that, if betting were leading to addiction, the industry would condemn it. That sounds very pious and fine. However, pious words of condemnation and expressions of sorrow will not remove the grief of families caught in the trap of their loved ones' addiction. The price of addiction is paid by the family. It is all very well for a Member of Parliament, with his salary, to say that he is waiting for his name to come up on the list of winners. Many of the people about whom we are talking cannot afford the addiction in which they are caught. Nor can their families.
This legislation is intended to benefit one group of people—the bookmakers. In my constituency there are certainly no poor bookmakers. However, I know hundreds of very poor families whose fathers and sons have been enticed into this activity.
I should like, finally, to refer to protection for the rights of workers involved in Sunday betting duties. As for hon. Members who say that they champion workers' rights, how can it be that, in the case of Sunday trading, the paramount desire was to enable shops to open? Anyone who suggests that this Bill or the legislation on Sunday trading—
§ Rev. William McCrea
I am talking about Sunday trading. I apologise to no one for consistently supporting legislation that defends the rights of workers. Unfortunately, members of the hon. Gentleman's party who said that they were for the workers were happy to go into the Lobby to ensure that there was no real protection for those very people. That is despicable. Anyone who suggests that the legislation we are considering will give protection to the people who are brought in to work as a result of its provisions is totally naive or just does not care.
I hope that the House will reject the new clause.
§ Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)
The matter before us is one of individual conscience on which, on both sides of the House, there are deeply held views. For this reason the Opposition will give its Members a free vote. That being the case, I speak in the debate not for my party but for myself.
It would be idle to try to conceal from a House that is already aware of it the fact that I speak also as an enthusiastic racegoer. The next time I go to the races on a Saturday, I should be very happy to take my hon. Friend 191 the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) along. We could probably visit the silver ring, access to which, at most racecourses in Britain, can be had for £2 or £3, or the Tattersall's enclosure, the cost of access to which, in most cases, is still between £5 and £7. In those enclosures my hon. Friend would find working people. They are there on a Saturday, and not between Monday and Friday, because they have jobs which, by and large, require more punctiliousness about attendance between Monday and Friday than does membership of the House of Commons.
The argument for providing a race meeting on a Sunday for the convenience of those who wish to enjoy the sport is demonstrated by a look at what happens with other sports. Before coming into the Chamber I looked at yesterday's edition of The Times. There I found four pages of reports on sporting activities that had taken place on Sunday. Premier football league matches are held on Sunday, as—obviously—are Sunday cricket league games. This applies also to the Stone's rugby league. Any hon. Member fortunate enough to have Sunday afternoon off from constituency work will have been able to watch golf or to witness Mark Todd's win at the horse trials.
The reason for the fact that all those sports are held on a Sunday is blindingly obvious: Sunday is the day on which most people are able to attend. It is the day when sports organisers can secure the biggest crowds. It is the day when most people who want to enjoy sport are able to do so. I have no difficulty with the assertion of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) that there should be choice. People who want to exercise that choice by watching their favourite sport should have the right to do so.
I make no bones about the fact that one reason why all those other sports are provided on a Sunday is that they draw the biggest crowds and bring in the largest amount of money on that day. Racing is entitled to the same opportunity of maximising its income.
I understand that next week the Opposition and the Government will lock horns on the question of competitiveness. Possibly, in this moment of truce, I can concede that we are discussing racing, which is competitive. In Europe, only France and Ireland can match Britain's horse racing industry. Both France and Ireland allow racing on a Sunday. I would hesitate to say that either of them is less Christian than Britain or—without wishing to provoke further interventions from the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Mid-Ulster—Northern Ireland.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
If racecourses were opened on Sundays —at £2, £3, £5 or whatever—and more people wanted to use them, which would be a matter for the courses, why do we need to allow betting shops to open the length and breadth of the country?
§ Mr. Cook
My hon. Friend is taking me further ahead in my speech. May I reach that question in my own time? I will be happy to deal with that serious matter at that time and to give way.
Because France and Ireland provide racing on Sundays, one can bet on Sundays in Britain. All one needs is a good enough credit rating to ring up and place a credit bet at 192 Longchamps or Leopardstown. I do not see why we should deny that opportunity to the cash punter, who does not have a large enough turnover to warrant a credit account. By continuing to ban racing on Sundays, we are perpetuating the racing industry's history of being run to suit the wealthy and privileged, who can get off between Monday and Friday, and not working men who provide most of its income but gain the least of its attentions.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) made some trenchant observations about the nature of working life in the racing industry. Candidly, those of us who enjoy racing cannot take any pride in the way that staff in that industry are treated. They are often badly paid and have poor career development, and their accommodation at some racecourses is rather inferior to the quality of accommodation for the horses.
What does it take to put that right? Money. The best way to get more money into the racing industry is to take advantage of the growth in the leisure market. The best way to do that is to provide racing on the day when most people have time for leisure. That is why, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs examined the matter, both the Stable Lads Association and the Transport and General Workers Union impressed on it that they did not object to Sunday racing with proper protection. That is why the Jockeys Association of Great Britain has come out in support of Sunday racing in the past week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) mentioned off-course betting and I know that concern for the staff in that industry underlies much of my hon. Friend's concern. My preferred outcome would be Sunday racing with on-course betting, without necessarily having off-course betting. The Select Committee took that position three years ago. I recognise, however, that the Home Office and other people have expressed considerable concern about consequent illegal betting if racing took place without off-course betting. If we believe that we have a social problem with legalised off-course betting, I warn the House that we are likely to have more serious social problems with illegal off-course betting.
I invite hon. Members to reflect on what might happen if the Derby, which takes place on a Wednesday, were transferred to a Sunday. It is difficult to conceive how one could stage that race without inevitable widespread betting throughout Britain. If that is to happen, it would be better if it took take place within a legalised setting.
I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who said that he drew the line at betting on a Sunday. I could understand that view if we were drawing the line at gambling. I have some difficulty in drawing a line that allows casinos to open on Sundays, and thus allows gambling to take place, and allows credit betting but not cash betting. For that matter, a recent decision of the House will shortly allow lottery tickets to be bought on a Sunday, but not betting. We are not keeping Sunday special. At best, as the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, we may be keeping it slightly special.
§ Mr. Donald Anderson
Surely there is a difference in kind between some of my hon. Friend's examples and allowing betting shops to open throughout the length and breadth of the country in small towns and large cities as a direct result of the new clause.
§ Mr. Cook
Obviously, it is a matter of individual conscience and application. My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to apply to the question his own judgments about taste, discrimination and good sense. I find it difficult to distinguish between the character of credit betting by telephone and cash betting over the counter, except that credit betting is confined to people who tend to be better off and have better credit ratings and excludes people who do not have access to that privilege on a Sunday.
I offer some words of advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), whose speech was so trenchantly opposed to the bookmakers. I not sure whether he is aware that the Betting Office Licensees Association and the big bookmakers have been lobbying vigorously against the schedule before the House. If he wants to get up the noses of Ladbroke, Hill and Coral, the best way to do so is to vote for the schedule, to which they are strongly opposed. The more they protest about the protection of staff, the more I am convinced that the schedule must be carried. I hope that the Minister appreciates that the two go together.
We have had a good debate and hon. Members have spoken honestly, frankly and without rhetoric. The House should not make the mistake of failing to recognise the changing character of Sunday. I believe and have observed in my area that families still spend Sunday together, but they do not spend it attending church and sitting at home. They want to go out. Sunday is now the day of the family outing—the day when leisure centres do their biggest business. Racing is well placed to tap that growing market for a special Sunday outing. It provides a spectacle of colour and action. For me, racing provides the most exciting spectacle.
What particularly impressed me about the three experimental Sunday race meetings was not that they attracted large crowds, but that they attracted crowds of families, who came to enjoy racing together.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
If families are attracted to the racecourse, who will be attending betting shops on Sundays?
§ Mr. Cook
That is a perfectly fair question. At present betting shops are on the whole visited by solitary people. Possibly we need to consider the nature of the service provided at betting shops. Perhaps that could be amended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walton is entitled to exercise his judgment about whether he would attend a betting shop or a race meeting on a Sunday, but at Cheltenham, Doncaster and Lingfield I saw many families who had chosen to spend the day together attending Sunday racing.
§ Sir Peter Emery
I know that the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his speech, so I am even more thankful that he has given way. He was making a powerful plea for families to go together to sports meetings on Sundays and for racing to be included. I do not believe that families go to betting shops. Many of us object to betting shops being open on a Sunday and not to racing on a Sunday.
§ Mr. Cook
The right hon. Member must recognise that he faces a choice. It is not a choice that I find comfortable. I wish that we did not have to make it. I would be delighted if I could go racing on a Sunday. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, quite fairly, I have an adequate income to travel a considerable distance 194 to get to a race meeting on a Sunday. The right hon. Member must face the fact that, if there is racing on Sundays, there will be people who cannot afford the cost of going to a meeting but who will want to bet on a race. If that were to happen, should it happen legally and unofficially, with all its social consequences, or should it happen in licensed betting shops on a legal basis? My judgment is that it is better that it takes place on a legalised basis, but I have been persuaded—albeit I wish that it was not necessary to be so persuaded—that we cannot have racing on Sundays without off-course betting.
Let me return to the point that I was addressing before giving way. The Sunday experimental meetings were particularly impressive because of the large family attendances. They were particularly satisfactory for families because racecourses cover a large area which can be used to provide something for all the family.
I believe that the way forward for Sundays is to provide a real family day out. The way forward for racing is to offer families that day out. It is inevitable that one day racing will be able to provide that on a Sunday. I hope that it will be able to start after tonight.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton)
This is a moment that I shall savour, as I shall not often be able to say that I agreed almost entirely with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). When he knows what he is talking about, he can make very good sense.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on seizing the initiative on Sunday racing and betting—a subject on which there have been several private Members' Bills which failed to get through the House. I quite understand why my hon. Friend would want to advance his cause while there is an opportunity for a Government Bill.
The Government wanted the House to have an early opportunity, after Sunday trading had been decided, freely to reach a decision on the various issues. However, we had envisaged a full consultation by the Government with the industry and others, so that the House could reach a conclusion in the confidence that all the issues had been properly aired and that the choices properly reflected the voice of those affected by the measure. My hon. Friend has jumped the gun and come out of the starting gate before that opportunity arose. I do not criticise him in any way. This is an admirable opportunity to do what he has done, and I welcome it.
The Government have no objection to the new clause in principle, but as there has not been an opportunity for the considered study that we would have wished, it may be more controversial than it might otherwise have been. In particular, the measures on employment protection, which mirror precisely those in the Sunday Trading Bill, will need to be examined to ensure that they are appropriate in the different context of the betting industry.
As the hon. Member for Livingston said, such issues divide people on conscientious grounds, and it would be inappropriate for the Whips to be too active in advising hon. Members on how to vote. As this has traditionally been an issue on which the Conservative party allows a free vote, we are content for that to be so today and, if the matter is pressed to a vote, for it to be resolved without the assistance of the Whips.
There are differing views in the Conservative party. As there has to be an article on the front page of the papers 195 every day about splits in the Government, I can confirm that I shall be voting one way and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry will be voting the other way.
I have listened with care to the arguments advanced by those who spoke against the new clause today. There are those who, for conscientious or religious reasons, believe in sabbatarianism to a greater or lesser extent and naturally oppose the new clause. I am afraid that I do not share that view, although I recognise that substantial numbers of people do.
There have been some spirited speeches against what has been described as the disease of gambling, not least by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), whose constituency abuts Aintree racecourse. I last saw the hon. Member for Livingston at the races where I discovered, in the words that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) used many times in Committee, that he is a jolly decent cove. I hope that it will in no way diminish his stature in the House if I say that I discovered him to be a very warm human being.
Of course, any innocuous activity can be abused if it is indulged to excess, but as a matter of general principle we do not take the view that, because a very small minority of people might not be able to control themselves or might abuse the freedoms we have in society, we should deny those freedoms to everybody else. We have to make a balanced judgment in each individual case as to the appropriate course of action.
I cannot envisage that, as a result of the proposed changes, which I warmly support, the nation will suddenly be plunged into a hell-hole of gambling the like of which we have never seen before. The addition to the opportunities to bet, which most people use sparingly and with judgment, will not be great.
The Government accept that the principle of employment protection for betting workers ought to feature in the measure to ensure that Sunday working is voluntary. Should the House vote in favour of Sunday racing in new clause 1, the Government will accept amendment No. 1, but as it is technically deficient in a number of ways on account of its being drafted in such a way as to mirror the shops legislation, some elements in it are not appropriate. I will give a example to illustrate my point because I know that Opposition Members will be suspicious of these remarks and it is better that their suspicions should be dispelled as soon as possible.
Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the proposed new schedule cover the effect of rights on contracts of employment. Unlike shops, the ban on the opening of betting offices in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 is a total one. As a result, betting office workers cannot be required to work on a Sunday. Therefore, the provisions relating to existing contracts of shopworkers may not be required for betting workers. We shall have to consider whether this is an appropriate way of drafting the measure.
Schedule 4 of the Sunday Trading Bill distinguishes between protected shop workers and opted-out workers. That arises from the fact that some existing shopworkers may be required to work on Sundays. The position of betting workers is different, so it may not be necessary to make a similar distinction in providing new rights for betting workers. I confirm that it is not the Government's 196 intention to produce legislation in which betting workers are treated in any way less favourably than those who work in shops on Sundays.
The provisions of new clause 1 are almost wholly benign and will be regarded generally in the country as non-controversial. There may be some resource implications for local authorities which supervise the tracks and there will certainly be manpower implications for the police, should Sunday racing become a regular feature, so we would have preferred to undertake consultation with those enforcement bodies, as they would have expected, before such changes were brought before the House. Nevertheless, before the measure is debated in another place, we shall seek to consult all such affected parties so as to take their views properly into account.
With regard to employment protection, there will be those who will be expect to be consulted on the measure before it is debated in another place. Employment measures are primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. While he is content in principle for provision to be made to ensure that Sunday working by betting workers is voluntary, he wishes to consult further. The proposed new schedule, as it suffers from the technical flaws to which I have referred, may be more complicated than necessary. I hope that it will not be pressed in the House but will be withdrawn on the basis of the assurances I have given today that, in another place, the Government will introduce an appropriate measure to achieve the effects that I have described.
§ Mr. Cook
The hon. Gentleman's last sentence did not chime with his earlier sentences. If there is some defect in the schedule, plainly there would be no objection to the correction of those defects and technical problems in the other place, particularly if those amendments do not in any way change the present protection provided by that schedule. The Minister may be putting the House in a difficult position by suggesting that the schedule should not be carried today. He is then inviting the House to approve the new clause without seeing precisely what protection will be provided by the schedule.
§ Mr. Hamilton
I wish to preserve the amity of the debate and show the flexibility of which I am capable. If the hon. Gentleman suspects that the Government would not come forward with amendments that he might approve, which may diminish his enthusiasm for supporting this liberalising measure, I shall immediately do a U-turn and say that we shall recommend to my hon. Friends that they support the schedule on the basis that we shall seek to amend it in the House of Lords to correct the technical deficiencies that I mentioned a moment ago. After that illustration of verbal dexterity, I have little more to say.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) asked why betting shops should be opened off course. The hon. Member for Livingston referred to the danger of illegal off-course betting developing. By definition, it would be unregulated and subject to greater dishonesty and criminality. We know from the experience recounted by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) that there were many such examples in the days when betting shops were illegal. People naturally seek the best price at which to bet, and on the day before a race a starting price would not be available which reflected the latest conditions of the course or the 197 horses. Many people would leave betting until shortly before a race in the light of the latest prices being offered on the course.
As the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out, if some of the big classified races were held on Sundays, the temptation for illegal betting would be almost irresistible. He would not wish that to happen, so it would be much better to treat betting shops in the same way as on-course betting. As there would be no significant risk to the public, I commend the measure to all Members of the House.
§ Mr. Paice
With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As I suspect we all know, the debate has shown that this issue raises considerable passion in some quarters. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who is the Whip on this Bill, told me that his support for the measure was in inverse proportion to the length of the debate, so I shall conclude matters quickly. Rather than respond to all the individual points made by many hon. Members, which would detain the House and be unsatisfactory, I shall make just two points.
First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and many others referred to on and off-course betting. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs referred to the illegal betting that would spring up, particularly if major races took place on Sundays. It has also been suggested that people could bet the previous day. People always like to bet close to the time of a race. One good reason is that runners often withdraw up until the last few hours before a race, so that any bet becomes invalid. That is a sound reason why people need to bet close to the time of the race.
Secondly, I understand that feelings differ among hon. Members on both sides of the House about employee protection, but it would be inequitable to offer anything other than the same provisions as those in the Sunday Trading Bill. Some people may think that that is not enough and others may believe that it goes too far. I believe that it is a compromise on the amount of protection to which the House agreed in one context and should accept in another.
§ Mr. Jopling
I have no objection to racing taking place on Sundays, but if betting did not take place on Sundays, the bookmaking fraternity—I should have declared an interest as I sometimes advise one of the large bookmaking firms, although it will not be pleased with what I am about to say—would immediately change its rules and take bets on Saturdays to exclude non-runners on Sundays.
§ Mr. Paice
My right hon. Friend omits a serious point. When people place bets, they look at all the runners. If one runner withdraws, even if it is a horse on which they have not bet, it may throw the odds on all the others, which is why it is necessary to bet close to the time of the event.
The time is now right for the House to remove the discrimination against the racing industry. I have listened to the debate and am anxious that we should allow racing to compete with the rest of the leisure industry. I commend the new clause to the House.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 189.201
|Division No. 223]||[5.55 pm|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Dowd, Jim|
|Alexander, Richard||Duncan, Alan|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Duncan-Smith, Iain|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Durant, Sir Anthony|
|Allen, Graham||Elletson, Harold|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)|
|Ashby, David||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Ashton, Joe||Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Evennett, David|
|Atkins, Robert||Faber, David|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)||Fabricant, Michael|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas|
|Austin-Walker, John||Fatchett, Derek|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)|
|Baldry, Tony||Fishburn, Dudley|
|Banks, Matthew (Southport)||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Forth, Eric|
|Barron, Kevin||Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)|
|Batiste, Spencer||Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)|
|Bayley, Hugh||Fraser, John|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||French, Douglas|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Gapes, Mike|
|Berry, Roger||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Betts, Clive||Garnier, Edward|
|Blair, Tony||Gerrard, Neil|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Boswell, Tim||Gill, Christopher|
|Boyes, Roland||Gillan, Cheryl|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Godsiff, Roger|
|Bright, Graham||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Browning, Mrs. Angela||Gorst, John|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Burden, Richard||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Burns, Simon||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Butler, Peter||Grylls, Sir Michael|
|Byers, Stephen||Hague, William|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Carlisle, John (Luton North)||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Carrington, Matthew||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hawkins, Nick|
|Chapman, Sydney||Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward|
|Clapham, Michael||Henderson, Doug|
|Clappison, James||Hendry, Charles|
|Clark, Dr David (South Shields)||Heppell, John|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)||Hill, James (Southampton Test)|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Hill, Keith (Streatham)|
|Coe, Sebastian||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)|
|Coffey, Ann||Home Robertson, John|
|Colvin, Michael||Hoon, Geoffrey|
|Congdon, David||Horam, John|
|Conway, Derek||Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)||Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Couchman, James||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Cran, James||Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)|
|Cummings, John||Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)|
|Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)||Hunter, Andrew|
|Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)||Jack, Michael|
|Darling, Alistair||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)||Janner, Greville|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)|
|Dicks, Terry||Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)|
|Dixon, Don||Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Key, Robert|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Rathbone, Tim|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Redmond, Martin|
|Knapman, Roger||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)||Reid, Dr John|
|Knight, Greg (Derby N)||Renton, Rt Hon Tim|
|Knox, Sir David||Riddick, Graham|
|Kynoch, George (Kincardine)||Robertson, George (Hamilton)|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)|
|Lawrence, Sir Ivan||Robinson, Mark (Somerton)|
|Legg, Barry||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Leigh, Edward||Rooker, Jeff|
|Lennox-Boyd, Mark||Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela|
|Lightbown, David||Ryder, Rt Hon Richard|
|Lilley, Rt Hon Peter||Sackville, Tom|
|Litherland, Robert||Salmond, Alex|
|Livingstone, Ken||Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|McAllion, John||Shersby, Michael|
|MacKay, Andrew||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|McKelvey, William||Soames, Nicholas|
|Maclean, David||Spencer, Sir Derek|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Madel, Sir David||Spring, Richard|
|Major, Rt Hon John||Sproat, Iain|
|Malone, Gerald||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Mandelson, Peter||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Mans, Keith||Steen, Anthony|
|Marland, Paul||Stevenson, George|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)||Sweeney, Walter|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Sykes, John|
|Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Taylor, John M. (Solihull)|
|Maxton, John||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Meale, Alan||Thomason, Roy|
|Merchant, Piers||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Miller, Andrew||Thumham, Peter|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)||Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Tracey, Richard|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Tredinnick, David|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Trend, Michael|
|Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Trotter, Neville|
|Moss, Malcolm||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Mowlam, Marjorie||Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Needham, Richard||Walden, George|
|Nelson, Anthony||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Waller, Gary|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Norris, Steve||Watts, John|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Wells, Bowen|
|O'Neill, Martin||Whitney, Ray|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley||Whittingdale, John|
|Ottaway, Richard||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Page, Richard||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Patchett, Terry||Willetts, David|
|Patnick, Irvine||Wilshire, David|
|Patten, Rt Hon John||Wilson, Brian|
|Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Wood, Timothy|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Worthington, Tony|
|Pendry, Tom||Wray, Jimmy|
|Pickles, Eric||Yeo, Tim|
|Pope, Greg||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)|
|Portillo, Rt Hon Michael||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Mr. James Paice and|
|Prescott, John||Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Barnes, Harry|
|Ainger, Nick||Bates, Michael|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Alton, David||Beggs, Roy|
|Amess, David||Bell, Stuart|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Benn, Rt Hon Tony|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Bennett, Andrew F.|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)||Biffen, Rt Hon John|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Blunkett, David|
|Body, Sir Richard||Khabra, Piara S.|
|Booth, Hartley||Kilfedder, Sir James|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Brazier, Julian||Lewis, Terry|
|Butcher, John||Llwyd, Elfyn|
|Callaghan, Jim||Lord, Michael|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Lynne, Ms Liz|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||McCartney, Ian|
|Cann, Jamie||McCrea, Rev William|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Macdonald, Calum|
|Churchill, Mr||McFall, John|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||McMaster, Gordon|
|Clelland, David||McWilliam, John|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Madden, Max|
|Connarty, Michael||Maginnis, Ken|
|Corbett, Robin||Mahon, Alice|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Marek, Dr John|
|Cormack, Patrick||Martlew, Eric|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian|
|Cousins, Jim||Michael, Alun|
|Dafis, Cynog||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)|
|Davidson, Ian||Molyneaux, Rt Hon James|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Morley, Elliot|
|Davies, Quentin (Stamford)||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)||Mullin, Chris|
|Day, Stephen||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Devlin, Tim||O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)|
|Dewar, Donald||O'Brien, William (Normanton)|
|Donohoe, Brian H.||O'Hara, Edward|
|Dover, Den||Olner, William|
|Dunn, Bob||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Eagle, Ms Angela||Paisley, Rev Ian|
|Eastham, Ken||Parry, Robert|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Pawsey, James|
|Enright, Derek||Pickthall, Colin|
|Etherington, Bill||Pike, Peter L.|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Fisher, Mark||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Forman, Nigel||Randall, Stuart|
|Foster, Rt Hon Derek||Raynsford, Nick|
|Foulkes, George||Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn|
|Fry, Sir Peter||Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)|
|Fyfe, Maria||Roche, Mrs. Barbara|
|Galbraith, Sam||Rooney, Terry|
|Gallie, Phil||Ross, William (E Londonderry)|
|Galloway, George||Rowlands, Ted|
|Garrett, John||Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim|
|George, Bruce||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Graham, Thomas||Sheerman, Barry|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Grocott, Bruce||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Gunnell, John||Simpson, Alan|
|Hall, Mike||Sims, Roger|
|Hannam, Sir John||Skinner, Dennis|
|Hanson, David||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Hardy, Peter||Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)|
|Harris, David||Smith, Rt Hon John (M'ld'ds E)|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Hinchliffe, David||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Snape, Peter|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Soley, Clive|
|Hutton, John||Spearing, Nigel|
|Illsley, Eric||Spellar, John|
|Ingram, Adam||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)||Stephen, Michael|
|Jessel, Toby||Strang, Dr. Gavin|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)||Straw, Jack|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Streeter, Gary|
|Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)|
|Jowell, Tessa||Turner, Dennis|
|Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)||Wallace, James|
|Wardell, Gareth (Gower)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Waterson, Nigel||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Wilkinson, John||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)|
|Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Winnick, David||Mr. Donald Anderson and|
|Wise, Audrey||Mr. Paul Flynn.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.