HL Deb 16 December 1974 vol 355 cc921-36

2.58 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

On Question, Bill read 3a.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD)

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Lord WIGG moved the Amendment: After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:

Grants The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the Sports Council, may out of monies to be provided by Parliament make a sum available to provide for safety at sports stadia and other sports grounds equal to the sum made available annually to the Arts Council out of monies provided by Parliament.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment in order to give Her Majesty's Government a further opportunity of reconsidering their policy. I have had to draft the Amendment in such a way as to keep within the terms of the Long Title. I view this Amendment as a peg on which to hang a wider argument. I have also included in my Amendment reference to the Central Council for Physical Recreation and the Sports Council, not because I want to extend a conflict of interest or exacerbate any frictional relations between these bodies, but because I want to leave the question of which body is the best body, or a combination of the two, to wiser minds than my own. I put the words in to recognise that there are two interests, one body an entirely voluntary organisation, the other a body which represents the interests of sport as a whole, but containing members nominated by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and persons of eminence who have shown an interest in the subject.

I am asking the Government now, as I have asked in the previous proceedings on the Bill, for nothing. I am not asking the Government to give me money; I am not even asking them to alter their policy. But I am asking that the Government as a whole should look at the problem. While my remarks are directed to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as the spokesman of the Home Office, there are much wider issues than that. It just happens that it was the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who, when he was Home Secretary, introduced legislation dealing with betting, gaming and lotteries. He subsequently introduced the Bill dealing with the levy as a predecessor had introduced a Bill a generation before dealing with the same subject. He did it not because he was interested in this, but because of a pledge, properly made and redeemed by the Conservative Party at the 1959 Election, that they would deal with two major social evils. They dealt with that in a way which had my support. I am embarrassed when there is any deviation of the policy, particularly when, as I see it, it has been departed from by those who do not really thoroughly understand—and I say this with great respect—what they are up to.

I must remind both sides of the House that the country as a whole has benefited from what I regard as an objective view, taking full account of the interests right across the board. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat myself for the umpteenth time, but it needs to be recognised that when the Labour Government was formed in 1964 the total amount received was of the order of £33 million. It now amounts to £240 million—plus a levy for racing, which, in my submission, has probably gone as far as it can go, of the order of £8 million, plus a further emolument which is taken by the Racecourse Association of about £1 million-odd, certainly over £1 million in 1975, for the commentary fund. These are very large sums indeed. I just wonder whether noble Lords, the Government or Members of another place understand the real significance of a reply given by Lord Harris's colleague, Dr. Summerskill, when she announced that the total sum wagered was of the order of £441 million—if one deducts tax from that it is a sum of £257 miltion—against a total turnover of £2,700,000.

That means that the situation in which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, found himself in in 1959, for quite other reasons, is now being repeated; because it means that those right across the board who make a living or run organisations to profit from betting and gaming are working on a gross figure of 8 per cent. That, of course, is not sustainable when one has to take into account that from that figure has to be deducted levies and the like. Therefore of course, human nature being what it is, if form in this field has any meaning at all, then sooner or later organisations will have to cease trade, individuals will go out of business, or—fearful thought!—they will start to act illegally, which must lead to a diminution of the amount which the Government collect by way of taxation, plus the fact that there will be a re-creation of a major social evil.

We have only to look across the Channel to an organisation constantly held up to us as a model of how to conduct affairs. It is now perfectly clear that the Tiercé, which was the source of all goodness, so we were told, is now a source of major corruption: there have been murders, beatings-up, arrests of a number of jockeys and trainers, and the story is not yet finished. Mr. Jean Cahan, who is responsible as a surety for this, produced a report of some 750 pages, and it has been on the go for some time. We do not want that here, and I again hold strong Party political views. But I pay my tribute—I have done so before and I repeat it again—to Lord Butler because his legislation was far-seeing. I do not believe that we have the Mafia or anything like the Mafia here, and, please, we do not want it. This is a major social evil and it comes about because, after all, whether we like it or not, a number of our fellow citizens choose to spend their time perhaps trying to win large sums with small stakes, and it provides a profitable field for some that they choose to bet in the way they do. It is there and no one can do very much about it, except to recognise the fact that if you want to alter it, it is a very slow, long process.

The Government here have introduced the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill. It imposes obligations, some of them which over the years could grow; it is going to be very massive in its consequences here, and they make no provision about finance. The argument put to me is of course that in these hard times we cannot do it, and some very silly things have been said. Just a week ago I picked up the point of those who said that we had not a penny for anything; I pointed out that we managed to give the Arts Council I some £28 million—although I repeat I do not begrudge it—for the coming year. That is the figure reported in the Press. Certainly it has grown from £2 million in 1964 to £13½ million the year before last and £17½ million last year; it certainly is £22 million this year, and the only point is dispute is whether the addition of £6 million as reported is right or whether it is £3 million. Anyway, it is a large sum and I do not berudge a single penny of it, but it has been obtained because the Government have recognised the importance of the cultural life of the country and have supported it financially—and I repeat, quite rightly.

I also hold the point of view—and it was made by a noble Lord opposite when I spoke last week—that sport is tied up with character building. It is also tied up with the proper use of leisure. I ask noble Lords to go back some time and read the very able Report prepared by Sir Norman Chesters called Football. It was presented to yet another Minister, the Secretary of State for Education. The Report argues that there should be a levy on football. If I may be forgiven for saying it, having paid a tribute to Sir Norman Chesters' work, I wish he had come along and had a talk with some of us to explain how the levy would work, and then he would not have made the recommendations in quite the form he did. But he looked for a levy of 1 per cent. for football, and there was a Minority Report for 2 per cent. Be it noted, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, the man who could have put it into operation with a flick of his finger, is the present Secretary of State for the Home Department. He could have done it. But six years have gone by and nothing has been done by any Administration and for a very good reason.

I read again the account of the proceedings on the Levy Bill. Then I was somewhat isolated because on that occasion I voted five times against my own Party, for one very simple reason. I had been a member of the small Working Committee of only three who had had conversations with the Home Office and had produced proposals which subsequently were embraced in a Levy Bill, and it was not possible for me—at least I did not think so; I could not face it— of doing one thing on the Committee and then, when the Bill came before the House of Commons, voting in the opposite direction. When the Home Secretary was faced with a demand for a levy he set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Leslie Peppiatt. Their Report was debated on 23rd May 1960, and Mr. Enoch Powell, who I thought at the time was quite wrong, advanced with some vigour and with a clarity of thought that one associates with Mr. Powell, the fact that he was opposed hook, line and sinker to anything that savoured of hypothecation. He talked about assignment of duties, and in fact it has been breached only once, as I understand it, and then in a minor degree, over the duties associated with the cinema. In order to get Sunday opening, the cinema industry undertook to make a contribution to charity, and that is the only breach of it. The opposition from the Treasury stemmed from the fact that it would lead to hypothecation. I did not believe him, and that is why I voted as I did in support of the Levy Bill. But I have had an opportunity of seeing it in practice, and it does lead to hypothecation—it is hypothecation—and it leads to all the pressures and errors which worried Mr. Powell.

May I give an example? There was a great discussion, as there is now, about how the Levy Board should be composed. I was a member of the old Racecourse Betting Control Board and was nominated by a Conservative Minister. That Board was composed rather like the Sports Council, right across the board. Every Department in Whitehall nominated somebody. I was nominated by the then Minister of Agriculture. When the new Bill came forward it was decided to have a Board composed of a very limited number of people: one member from the Jockey Club, one member from the National Hunt Committee, three independent members nominated by the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee, the Chairman of the Totalisator. The Jockey Club objected to having only one member and the National Hunt Committee another. They said: "We ought to have two." A great deal of discussion took place on that and I certainly was a party to giving them two. That gives them three out of the present Board.

I hope noble Lords will refresh their memories on this point. The Home Office spokesman said this: "It is a condition of the Home Office's accepting this proposal, not a requirement but a condition, that they shall represent interests right across the board, and there is no place here for special interests." It was accepted on that basis. It has not been honoured. It was never honoured. The interests have not been represented across the board. Indeed, until 1967 when this fact was pointed out to them with some force, no attempt whatever was made to represent the special interests. Therefore, I do not believe that the levy approach will make any further progress. I say this because the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in the Memorandum that was circulated in July when this Bill was for the second time put forward, suggested that there should be an extension of a football levy.

If one examines the facts. I do not believe that a football levy which was not acceptable in 1968 can possibly be acceptable now. If it is not extended, then there is no more in it than the present figure of £8 million. Also, if any concession is made to the extension of the levy to football, it will at once lead to a queue of other interests—not least, the dogs who would make the same claim. If there is no progress in that field, then there is the second leg which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, put forward; namely, that there should be lotteries. Here, again, the scoring is complicated. On 21st November, the noble Lord's colleague in another place described the situation as being complicated and controversial and said that it must not be approached piecemeal; it must be looked at right across the board.

The situation which the Government have to face is that five or six years ago there was a decision of this House, acting in its legal capacity, that what is called "Spot the ball" was illegal. They passed a measure, the Pools Competition Act 1971, extending the status quo until 1976. In the meantime, the Home Office were faced with an acute problem, because although the Gaming Board had put a limit on bingo there was no limit on football; and if one puts a limit on football at a low level it will ruin the football pools. Therefore they set up a departmental committee under the chairmanship of a civil servant. His report has never been approved or disapproved; it is in limbo. I do not understand how, in the light of what one Minister of the Department says in the other place, another Minister can come to this House and hold out the hope that lotteries will provide a way out.

I had sent to me an exercise which was carried out by the GLC. As your Lordships know, the GLC is very close to the thinking in the Home Office. Their treasurer circulated a paper which showed that £500,000 was the most that could be collected under the legislation which was being considered in another place—a Private Member's Bill—that £225,000 is set aside every month for prizes and that the largest prize must not be less than £100,000; £6,500 is set aside for reserve and £43,500 for publicity and commission on the sale of tickets. If you have a monthly lottery of £500,000, it means you must sell 2 million tickets a month at 25p each, and if you have only £43,000 to promote it you are being very optimistic. And, joke upon joke, they had completely forgotten that a lottery of that kind is liable to a pool duty of 40 per cent. If, therefore, you take £200,000 from the £500,000 which the Treasury will collect, the figures look rather ridiculous. It is possible to extend the small lotteries which do not meet such a heavy burden of taxation, but I do not believe that there is any profit to be made in that direction.

The social consequences lie with the Home Office. The question of finance and taxation lies with the Treasury. The report on football is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Education. The Secretary of State for the Environment is concerned with the Sports Council's grant, and one has to remember that the Minister for Sport is one of his junior Ministers. All I am asking for is that the Government should take this complicated problem, which has its effect upon taxation, upon a number of sports and upon how our young people, both now and in the future, use their leisure time, and look at the problem right across the board. I would even make so bold as to say that it is a problem for the Prime Minister, because the Home Secretary does not have sufficient political mileage to interfere with the Treasury; nor does the Chancellor of the Exchequer have sufficient political weight to interfere with the affairs of the Home Office. Then, for good measure, there is the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is also the fact that anything which has to do with the horse ought to be a matter for the Minister of Agriculture.

Therefore all that I am asking for is that one should recognise that it is a complicated, confused problem and that it should not be left on one side. I ask today, as I have asked on several previous occasions, that the Minister who replies should say, "I can give you no answer today, and I am sure you would not expect me to do so. However, I promise to take the problem away and have a look at it." If the Minister goes even further and says that there are certain aspects which need to be referred to a Select Committee of both Houses, in order that recommendations could be made to the Government about how the problems should be handled, I should regard it as very much of a bonus and would even be constrained to wish him a very happy Christmas. I beg to move.

3.15 p.m.

Earl COWLEY

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is once again asking the House to amend this Bill so that public funds can be made available to sports stadia in order to cover the cost of implementing the regulations covering the safety certificates which are provided for under this Bill. I shall not detain the House by repeating the arguments which I used against this principle on Second Reading and at Committee stage. However, on this occasion the noble Lord is arguing that since public moneys are granted to the Arts Council, an equal amount should be made available to sports stadia. For that argument to be valid there must be certain similarities between the Arts Council and sports stadia, and about the needs of each.

I readily agree with the noble Lord that spectator sports are as much entertainment and, in some ways, as much art, in the broadest sense of the word, as theatre and opera. However, the noble Lord is asking for a sum which is equal to the amount that is given to the Arts Council, so that sports stadia need not themselves pay the cost of removing the risk to people that the stadia themselves have created. This presumes that the original grant of £17½ million which was given to the Arts Council in the last financial year was for safety purposes. That is certainly not the case. Out of that grant of £17½ million, only £1½ million was spent upon what might be called "Housing the Arts". Of the total grant-in-aid to the professional theatres in England, which amounted to £2½ million in the last financial year, only £40,000 was spent upon capital improvements. In fact, the vast majority of the grant to the Arts Council goes in salaries and in guaranteeing unprofitable productions.

I am presuming that by his Amendment to a Bill on safety the noble Lord does not intend to subsidise the salaries of football players and the officials of football clubs, or to underwrite unprofitable football matches. Also, it should not be forgotten that the private revenue of football clubs is in general much greater than that received by the Arts. Without the subsidy and with only private revenue to rely upon, many people who are involved in the Arts would be faced with even more serious personal financial difficulties than those with which they are faced at the present time.

My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has made out his case, or that the House should accept this Amendment if the noble Lord should decide to press it. Under this Bill, the needs of the Arts Council and the needs of the sports stadia are not similar. I hold to my original belief that it is wrong for the Government to provide public funds, so that private enterprises can remove the risk to the public that they themselves have created in the first place.

3.19 p.m.

Lord SLATER

My Lords, I have listened most attentively to the presentation of his Amendment by my noble friend Lord Wigg. A favourite expression which was used by the noble Lord was "right across the board", and I began to wonder what is meant by that expression. Is his concern due only to professionalism, whereby the individual or the racecourse betting levy is imposed, profits accrue and taxation has to be met because the benefit comes from the betting that takes place during the course of a race meeting, or even from the amount of money that accrues from the people who go through the turnstiles at a professional football match? If it is "right across the board", I wonder why consideration is not given to other sections of society in this country which engage in sport. For example, may I start with the schools? Our children, with their school teams, are looked after by sports teachers who spend a lot of their spare time—if, indeed, they have any—encouraging and moulding these young people so that they will turn out to be real sportsmen, in the true sense of the word, and may even rapidly grow into professional sportsmen.

Then there are the amateur clubs. I wonder whether noble Lords are aware of the number of football clubs in this country which play on Sundays. At one time, Sunday was looked upon as a day of rest. This sport is extending in such a way that it will depend upon the general public going along and contributing to a collection which may be made, even to pay the cost of the referee. I know of local amateur football clubs where the players themselves have to find the fee for the referee out of their own pockets. Therefore, when we speak of its being "right across the board", we surely ought not to stop at professional racing, professional football, professional rugby, or any other type of professional sport in this country.

The Arts Council was mentioned earlier. I have not been very interested in the Arts in the general sense, because it seems to me that the Arts are not heard of very much in the provinces where I come from. As I understand it, the greater part of the Arts is centred here in the metropolis, and in areas such as mine it does not reach that apex of understanding and operation that it reaches in London, where so many public bodies are interested in its continuation and where it receives benefit by way of taxation.

3.22 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I will begin by reminding the House of the circumstances in which we are having this debate today. During the Report stage of the Bill on 10th December the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made the following observation: I read with some amazement reports in the Press this morning, and again this afternoon. There have been murmurings over the last few days as to what is happening to the Arts Council. The Arts Council is to get £6 million more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10/12/74; c. 569.] First, I hope I can set the noble Lord's mind at rest: the sum of £6 million referred to did indeed appear but this was in the Arts Council's recently published Report for 1973–74 as the sum which the Council needed from the Government. No figure has been agreed by the Government for the Council's grant for next year. I think that will to some extent meet the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord last week. The only increased Government grant which has been made available to the Arts Council, which appeared in the Supplementary Estimate in December, was not for £3 million which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, referred to earlier this afternoon, but for £1.75 million, and this was simply to take account of the effects of inflation. I say this because the noble Lord may not have been aware that my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Science in fact referred to some of this Press speculation in another place on Friday last. I hope that meets to some extent the anxieties which the noble Lord expressed on the 10th December.

I fear that the position of the Government—and my noble friend will not be altogether surprised to hear this—is not any different from what it was on Report stage, when the noble Lord raised this question, nor on the Committee stage nor on Second Reading. The position is that in the present economic state of the country, quite apart from the principles involved, the present situation is such that it is impossible to make monies available on the scale referred to in the noble Lord's Amendment. The noble Lord pointed out very fairly that he was to some extent in difficulty because of the Long Title of the Bill. However, the position is that if this Amendment were to be passed we should in fact be committing ourselves to expenditure of up to £19 million for safeguards which would be incorporated in sports stadia and foodball grounds, and I should think most Members of the House would take the view that in the present economic situation this is not an urgent priority matter so far as public expenditure is concerned.

With regard to the general question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, as I have endeavoured to point out to the House on previous occasions when this Bill has been discussed, the financial problems of the football clubs are recognised by the Government and that is why the Bill is drafted as it is. In the first place, it can be implemented and will indeed be implemented by stages. Local authorities may require only what is reasonable and one of the elements of what is reasonable will be the cost of such precautions as may be necessary, and requirements can be adjusted to take account of factors such as average attendances rather than maximum capacity. Again as I have pointed out to the House on previous occasions, it will be possible for the necessary work to be carried out by stages and there will be ample opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of State against requirements of the certification procedure which are regarded as unreasonable by the club.

I fear that that is the only decision which the Government can take, given the present financial problems facing this country. I recognise that it is not anything like so far as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, would like us to go but I am afraid it is as far as we can go. I fear that the only point on which I can in any way respond to him is to agree with him in his concluding remarks as he sat down and warmly to wish him a very merry Christmas as well.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, I am much obliged for the noble Lord's good wishes for Christmas, but I would have been much happier if he could have responded a little further. He has moved a little but not very much. I should like to detain the House for a moment or two, just to deal with one or two of the points that have been made. It seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, could not have heard me aright. I did not want to take anything off the Arts Council. I support the Arts Council, and that enables me to say to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, that perhaps the most remarkable part of its work is the extent to which it has stimulated an interest in the Arts in the Provinces. It is true that there are grants of just over £4 million to just four theatres. I am not surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, can accept that.

Earl COWLEY

My Lords, if I gave the impression that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, wanted to take money away from the Arts Council I apologise to him. I did not understand that at all.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, I am sorry; it is my complete inability to make myself plain. I have said it at least half a dozen times and I will say it again: I do not want to take a penny away from the Arts Council. I welcome all that they get and I wish they could get more. All I am pointing out is that they have got it, and they have got it as a result of enlightened pressures on both Labour and Conservative Administrations. They had not had to meet the fundamental point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, the charge of doing it on the basis of profitabilily. Covent Garden, the National Theatre, the Opera House and Sadlers Wells get £4¼ million.

Earl COWLEY

It is not £4 million to implement safety regulations. This is what the Bill is about.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, I will try again. Does not the noble Earl see that if you apply the principle which he worships with the test of profitability then you must not subsidise clubs which cannot pay their way. If you are to do it on the basis of profitability you would say, "Of course, not a penny because you put on your shows and they do not pay so you will not get any money". They stand or fall by their ability to meet their costs. In that case they would die. Although the noble Lord, Lord Slater, does not recognise it, the help that has been given to the North-East by the Arts Council would not be there. It is recognised that you cannot do what the Arts Council sets out to do on the basis of the test of expenditure balancing income. It is just not on; it has to come from somewhere else.

Let us not quarrel with the figures. I was very careful to say £6 million. I said that I did not believe the Press; I do not believe the Press on any subject; I do not even agree when they tip winners. I am always careful never to back well-tipped horses. I do not believe in that kind of form. I have no respect for political correspondents, defence correspondents or even racing correspondents. I prefer to do my own homework. So I went to the Arts Council. I had doubts about the £6 million, and I said so. When we come to the £22 million this is how it is made up. As I understand it, the Report just published was for the year before last. It shows £17½ million. The present figure, I understand, is £19½ million and they got £1,700,000 by way of a supplementary estimate, plus £750,000 to make up the VAT. I did not mention that fact in connection with racing or football. Football pays, in addition, £85 million by way of taxation; a vast sum is taken by VAT. I am informed by those who run the game that they pay more for the police than it costs them for the players. They have to meet this tremendous burden across the board stemming from a social problem.

The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, made comparison between what happens on a football ground and the football club which cannot afford to pay. I tried to take up this point on a previous occasion. At this game there are only about half a dozen who can pay their way. There must be all the other losers otherwise there would not be a game. If there is a team like Portsmouth making a loss last year of nearly £500,000, how much longer can it go on? As long as both sides of the House recognise what they are doing—I do not think they do—but it is a fact that a number of clubs will go out of existence. So far as the Home Office is concerned they are digging a pit for themselves. There is bound to grow in this country—I would not put it higher than that—the dangers of illegal betting, because you cannot sustain this edifice of £240 million taken out by taxation for ever and ever without at least recognising the problem you are creating. As I said on a previous occasion, "You cannot go on milking the cow unless you feed it". This is inevitable.

I have tried to put it all together. I am used to being in a minority of one here. I was in a minority of one so far as my own Party was concerned in relation to taxing betting in the first instance, and I rely on my own figures against the Press. We shall see on this as we shall see about defence tomorrow. If this problem is neglected then a vast social problem will be created. Racing, which is in a parlous condition, will receive no more money; football will not be able to meet its current obligations—never mind the obligations imposed here.

Those noble Lords who introduce other sports and who think that what I am saying is over their heads need to think again, because the reserve powers in this Bill are very great. It only needs a senior police officer at Epsom to apprehend that Langland stand is unsafe and to have a look at it. He makes an application to the Bench, the stand is closed and there is nothing the Home Secretary or anybody else can do about it. The reserve powers in this Bill are enormous. The Bill has been drafted by various officials to provide an alibi for Ministers. This is safety by phases. The situation may be as grave as was revealed at Ibrox. Please remember that the police officials were saying on the eve of Ibrox, "Absolutely safe: a perfect ground". It was, until a goal was scored at the last minute and 60-odd people died.

I said on Second Reading, I said when the Bill was first introduced in this House, "It is going to happen again". It is going to happen on a racecourse because paragraph 13 of the original legislation has never been implemented. So we shall have another accident in the line of Bolton, leading down to Ibrox. All that this Bill does—all it is intended to do—is to take it out of the hands of the Home Office and down to the local authorities. The responsibility rests with the police. Superimposed upon that is the problem of social wellbeing and the problem of taxation. My Lords, I have wearied the House too long. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.