| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Don Foster: I 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.
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?"
- "No. I know nothing about horse racing at all."
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
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 have 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.
7.51 pm
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.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
ADJOURNMENT (FEBRUARY)
- That this House, at its rising on Thursday 12th February, do adjourn till Monday 23rd February 2004.—[Mr. Heppell.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Northern Ireland
- That the draft Betting and Gaming (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 12th January, be approved.
National Election Expenditure
- That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Combined Region and Campaign Expenditure) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Energy
- That the Sustainable Energy (CHP Provisions) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2987) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Heppell.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
- That, at the sitting on Thursday 5th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Secretary Blunkett relating to the Police Grant Report not later than two hours after their commencement, and put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government Finance not later than Six o'clock or four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion relating to the Police Grant Report, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply.—[Mr. Heppell.]
7.52 p.m.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): I shall make one quick point on this subject. I regret that the motion will give us but four hours to discuss those two matters. In the past, such motions have been given far longer debates on the Floor of the House. They are worthy of greater and longer debate. They cover a huge range of local services that are delivered to our constituents. Indeed, they cover about 40 per cent. of the public expenditure delegated to local authorities. In the past we have always had more time to discuss such motions.
Under the timetable motion, we might have no more than two hours to discuss the local government settlement. There will be an hour when a statement is made, and two hours will allow little time for Back-Bench Members to participate in the debate. This is a bad move, and I hope that the Government will reconsider the issue in future. I shall not oppose the motion, but we all know that council tax is one of the issues that is at the forefront of many of our
constituents' minds. To provide only two hours for the police grant and the local government grant is a retrograde step, and I hope that more time will be provided in future.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |