§ Amendment made: No. 18, in page 41, line 20, at end insert "Section 24(2)(e)."—[Mr. Caborn.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
7.30 pm§ Mr. CabornI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had wide-ranging and interesting debates on Second Reading, in Committee and today. I put on record my sincere thanks to the Opposition parties for participating in such a constructive process. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that the Opposition's approach was probing, but we have conducted our proceedings to take the interests of racing and the Olympic bid forward effectively. The Bill is in 590 good shape, so it is right that we now commend it to the other House, where I hope that it will receive a fair hearing from all sides.
The Bill enables the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment to sell the Tote in a way that is fair both to racing and the taxpayer. Today, the Government have taken the opportunity to give the racing industry, the Tote itself, and hon. Members, the certainty that they wanted about key aspects of the Bill. We genuinely listened to their concerns and I hope that we responded positively, when possible. If our plans to sell the Tote to a racing consortium proceed, the Government will issue the successor company with an exclusive seven-year licence to provide pool betting on British horse racing. The seven-year period has been included in the Ball, so I hope that interested parties are now sufficiently comfortable about our intentions.
The Bill will also help to end the Government's outdated involvement in the funding and administration of horse racing, while safeguarding the important work of the levy board in supporting veterinary research and the improvement of breeds of horse. We want to ensure that those will be maintained at their current levels, at least, after the abolition of the board.
Should we win the right to host the Olympics, the Bill will give us the opportunity to introduce the Olympic lottery straight away. Let us throw our minds forward to July 2005, as we build up to presenting the British bid in Singapore. As I said in Committee, if we are fortunate enough to win, the response to the launch of the Olympic lottery will probably go beyond many hon. Members' expectations. Now that the provisions are in place, the International Olympic Committee will be further reassured that our bid for the 2012 Olympics is serious.
A dedicated Olympic lottery is expected to raise £750 million to help to fund the 2012 games. As was indicated during our short debate on the Olympics, the money would bring benefits throughout the whole of the UK. There would be regeneration not only in the Lea valley—although that is important—and in the east end of London and the Thames gateway, but throughout other parts of the United Kingdom in which holding camps would be established. The Bill is important for all those reasons, and I commend it to the House.
§ Mr. PaiceAs the Minister said, the Bill is important for horse racing especially, and as part of our planning for the lottery. As the House is fully aware, parts 1 and 2 relate to the Tote and the levy board. Racing is a huge industry with 100.000-odd jobs and 59 courses. In the past few years there has been record growth in the number of people attending racing, in betting turnover and in the number of horses in racing, so the industry is enjoying great success at present.
The Government's objectives in the Bill—the transfer of the Tote to racing, and the end of the Horserace Betting Levy Board with the transfer of its property to the British Horseracing Board—are entirely shared by Conservative Members. However, there are several details about which we are not happy and to which we shall want to return in another place: the mechanism and ownership of the Tote; the non-renewable nature of the exclusive licence; and the outcome of the Office of 591 Fair Trading investigations and the uncertainty surrounding racing as a result of those deliberations. Of course we welcome the two concessions that the Government made on Report, which are the inclusion of provisions on the seven-year exclusive licence, and the increase of the period for the submission of accounts from seven to 28 days for possessors of the licence.
In some ways, I am sorry that the Minister was so robust—I used the word "obstinate" earlier—in resisting amendments that would simply have included in the Bill several undertakings that he gave, although I assure him that that in no way reflects any doubt about his personal sincerity. However, if the Government are determined to deliver the transfer of the Tote and the dealings with the levy in the way that he described, which has the support of the whole House, I do not understand why measures to provide for that should not be included in the Bill. The desire to leave such provisions out is bound to engender some suspicion of alternative motives in some sectors of the Government—although I do not attribute those to the Minister.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said earlier, the Bill is largely not partisan—and we have tried not to make our consideration partisan. All hon. Members have addressed the aspects of the Bill involving the racing sector with genuine concern for a vital part of our leisure industry, which is also a huge employer that is important for many parts of the country, including mine. The Minister referred to the work of the levy board, and perhaps no constituency benefits from that more than mine. The horse racing forensic laboratory, the National Stud and the equine fertility unit are all in my constituency, so I have seen for myself the work and the benefits of the levy during my frequent visits to those places. I want that income flow to continue, albeit from commercial sources, after the abolition of the levy. I remain concerned about the uncertainty that surrounds the industry and the commercial framework in which negotiations on the sale of data and media rights will be undertaken.
The Olympic lottery aspect of the Bill has widespread support throughout the House. I am somewhat relieved that Scottish National party Members, who voted against Second Reading for some obscure reason, are not in the Chamber tonight—I hope that I am not tempting fate and that they will not descend en masse in a moment. Hon. Members, and people throughout the country, genuinely wish the Olympic bid well. As many Members have said, winning the Olympic bid for London will benefit the whole country, and equally, only London can win it. Our desire to achieve that is as strong as that of the Government and everybody else, so I repeat the support that has been expressed for the bid. Again, however, there are one or two issues to which we shall return in another place. We are not entirely convinced that the Government have examined all the ways in which the start date of the lottery could be brought forward, and I know that my noble Friends will wish to pursue that matter.
I, too, add my thanks to hon. Members who participated in proceedings on the Bill. There was little Government Back-Bench action in Committee other than on the all-important issue of the welfare of 592 racehorses. Those of us who have been Government Back Benchers on Committees know full well why that is. The Minister only let rip once in Committee and went off message—off text—when he inappropriately accused the hon. Member for Bath and me of being in an unholy alliance against market forces. That was so off beam in terms of the logic of our case that it deserves a mention. We wanted to enhance the working of the overall betting market rather than take the protectionist approach suggested by the Minister.
I also thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Bath for their contributions. I did not know of the interest of the hon. Member for Bath in horse racing, but it came through loud and clear. He did his homework, and I thank him for his support on some of our amendments.
The Opposition wish the Bill well. We want the Tote transferred into the hands of a racing trust as soon as possible. We will do all we can to expedite that. We take at face value the Government's many assurances about their intentions regarding the Tote and the levy, despite the Minister's refusal to include them in the Bill. We will address those issues in another place. In the meantime, I wish the Bill well in its subsequent proceedings and look forward to the implementation of all three parts of it.
§ Mr. Dennis Turner (Wolverhampton, South-East) (Lab/Co-op)I will address my brief comments to the betting aspects of the Bill. As we heard, there are 5 million to 6 million supporters of racing in this country. I want to place on the record their thanks to our Minister for Sport for introducing the Bill in the interests of everyone involved in racing.
As a member of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock, I vividly recall the passionate debate on the Tote and its future in the years following 1987. The issue of the betting levy led to major clashes with the bookies and the Jockey Club. A Conservative Government were in power throughout those years, and they tried to do the impossible and square the circle. All those issues—crucial for racing—are addressed in the Bill. I was pleased to hear the Minister restate that he and the Government were optimistic that the OFT and the racing industry, through the BHB, would resolve funding issues after the levy board disappears in 2006.
I congratulate our Government. We are fulfilling an election commitment, and the Bill shows that they are giving their long-term support to racing. I commend them on that, and I also commend our excellent Minister for Sport, who has given many hours to ensuring that he gets the Bill right. I thank him for it.
§ Mr. Don FosterI am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). I shall not give the same paeans of praise to the Minister, but I agree that he has the best interests not only of horse racing but of sport in general at heart. We have all been impressed with his knowledge of the horse-racing industry. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) suggested that I had had to do my homework before I served on the Committee. He was right, although I had some experience of the wonderful race course at Bath. I note how many different race courses hon. Members brought into their deliberations.
593 The real credit for boning up must go to the Minister. I note with great interest that back in June 2001 he was—unfairly, in my view—caught out by Clare Balding on Radio Five Live, when he was asked a series of questions about his knowledge of sport. One question was:
Can you name three jockeys who will be riding at Royal Ascot this week?to which he honestly and gamely replied:No. I know nothing about horse racing at all.Since then he has done a lot of learning, no doubt with the help of his officials, to whom he must be grateful.Much has happened in the short time for which we have discussed the Bill. Many of us indicated broad support for it on Second Reading. We commented on the fact that it was an enabling measure and explained that it had some holes. We tried to plug some of the gaps and fill those holes in Committee. I am grateful that the Minister listened to some of the arguments. As a result of our deliberations, a number of the holes have been filled by amendments. When he was not prepared to alter the Bill, he gave clear assurances on issues of concern, which will stand us in good stead at later stages and when his various plans come to fruition.
On the Tote, there remains concern about what will happen after the seven-year exclusive licence ends and whether, in the different competitive market that will exist then, the Tote, whatever guise it is in, will continue to give at least the same sums to racing. There is uncertainty. No doubt that can be explored in more detail in another place.
There is also uncertainty about the ending of the horserace betting levy and the board that administers it. The Minister has been open, acknowledging that there are difficulties with the alternative. I pay tribute to him for his work behind the scenes with the BHB and many others to find a solution to the problems caused by Office of Fair Trading rule 14. None of that alters the fact that we still have a great deal of uncertainty and continue to think that it would be wrong to abandon the levy before an alternative that is accepted throughout the racing industry is in place.
On the final part of the Bill, concerning the Olympic bid and the Olympic lottery game, I reiterate my party's clear support for the bid for the Olympic and Paralympic games. We have made a good start on that and congratulate all those involved in putting the bid together. We all accept that we will be successful only if we can demonstrate that we have clear financial underpinning for the bid. We have to impress the International Olympic Committee that we have clear funding streams to ensure that we will stage the best ever Olympics, and provide the regeneration that can come from that. Part of doing that is to have a successful Olympic lottery game.
I have explained that we have some general concerns that an additional game will have a detrimental effect on other good causes. We worry about further Government interference in dictating how lottery money should be used. As always, some cases justify an exception to the rule. Winning that Olympic bid is vital. It will bring benefits to all parts of the country, raise our sporting
594 aspirations and regenerate not only the lower Lea valley, but many other parts of the country as well. On this occasion, therefore, it is worth making that exception and supporting the concept of an Olympic lottery game as a component of the funding of what we hope will be a successful bid, and then a successful Olympic games.
Over the past 12 years I have been fortunate enough to serve in Committee on many Bills. On some occasions, Ministers in charge of the Bills have been kind enough to invite all those who have served in Committee to have drinks with them to celebrate the end of consideration in Committee. Sometimes, because of the fraught nature of our discussions and deliberations in Committee, those drinks sessions hive been rather tense affairs. In this instance, I hope that our discussions have been successful and that we have made some significant and valuable improvements to the Bill—so I hope that we shall be able to enjoy a pleasant session with the Minister at the drinks do that I am sure he will arrange. With that, we wish the Bill speedy passage in another place.
§ Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)In Barbara Cassani and Keith Mills we have two exceptional people. When we look back at things that did not work, such as Picketts Lock and certain aspects of the dome, although the dome was built on time and the Jubilee line was open on time—perhaps it was the contents of the dome that upset some of us—we see that there was an issue of ownership. There was no ownership of those two projects—not at the level of Government, local chief executive, Mayor or managing director. In Manchester—this is what made things work—we had a chairman, a chief executive and a managing director. It took some time to get things to work in Manchester, but we were successful. A few shins were kicked, and deservedly so. That has already been done, and it has been forgiven. That is why the local boroughs have been so good. They recognise that the model to follow is Manchester.
I am interested in the Olympics because I am interested in my local patch. We are not so far away, and we think we have the best wind-surfing facility in Europe. I said to Keith Mills a couple of weeks ago, "Most Members want to understand how they can get into this. They want to see whether they can host Australia, France or Germany, or parts of the teams that come over, if we win the games. What about a one-day conference so that local sports clubs, local district councils and county councils might come together to understand how we won and how we got the games?" He said, "That's a very good idea—I'll put it to Barbara."
I have not found that approach before, and that is the good thing about the forthcoming Olympics. On the other hand, if someone was a member of the International Olympic Committee in 1990, he would have said, "Athens will win", but in 1996 it was Atlanta. In 1996 it was said that it would be Beijing, but it was Sydney for 2000. If people are saying now that it will be Paris, that is good, because favourites do not win. It is countries that come from underneath that win. I support Third Reading, I support the London bid and I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.