| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tim Smith: Would not the disadvantage of such an arrangement--which, on the face of it, is attractive--be that horse racing would suffer considerably?
Mr. Jenkin: That is like saying that we should not have had a private sector operator for the national lottery because a private sector operator would be out to make profits for itself instead of raising money for good causes. However, we all know that Camelot was the best bet because it promised to raise the most money for good causes. I do not see why we could not create a semi-protected position for a privatised Tote with arrangements to divert money into the racing industry. That does not alter the fact that removing this part of the clause holds out the prospect that there will be moves to liberalise the national lottery, which would be detrimental to the lottery. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will make clear that the Government do not support the amendment.
I wish to add one more point. If it is planned at some time in the future to liberalise the national lottery to allow people to bet on it, it would be necessary also to amend this Bill. The only advantage of removing this part of the clause--if liberalisation of the national lottery were to take place--is that the Bill would have to be amended. I would like some clarification from my right hon. Friend on that point.
Mr. Stephen:
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on piloting this useful Bill through the House. I support the amendment, and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) about the effect of the lottery upon the horse race betting industry. I was also interested to hear that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) has placed a bet on the outcome of the election in his constituency. He did not tell the House whether he was betting that he would win his seat or lose it. I suspect probably the latter.
As a Conservative, my starting point must be freedom of choice for people to spend their hard-earned money as they wish. If they wish to have a little flutter, they should be allowed to do so on the Tote, the lottery or at the racecourse. I would be against the amendment if I thought that the activities of the Tote were not in the national interest, but those activities are very much in the national interest. The Tote puts a huge amount of money into racing, as indeed the football pools have put money into the sport of football and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has generated huge amounts for good causes--money that has benefited my constituents.
Racing used to be very much in the national interest because, for centuries, we needed horses for war. We needed horses with stamina, strength and speed to perform in the arduous conditions of the battlefield. I was a
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1266
Horses are now bred for sport, and horse racing gives enormous pleasure to many hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions--of people. Riding for the disabled is also an enormous source of pleasure, not only for disabled people but for those who help them. It engenders a love of animals, and those who care for horses are among the best animal lovers in the country. A constituent told me not long ago that her husband spent too much money on sick animals. "The only problem," she said, "was that he did not know they were sick until they came past the winning post at the end of the field."
The Tote competes with bookmakers and the national lottery. Bookmakers are perhaps the most colourful element at our racecourses, which would not be the same without them and their oddly named assistants, the tic-tac men, whose skill beggars belief. Bookmakers had a reputation in the past for being crooked, and it had been known for bookmakers to abscond before the end of a race. However, bookmaking is now an honest and properly run industry which benefits the public and the racing world.
I wish that the money raised by bookmakers, the Tote and the national lottery could pay for all the public expenditure that the House must authorise. I would much prefer it if income tax could be abolished and that everything could be paid for out of voluntary contributions, rather than having money extracted from our constituents by the Inland Revenue; I fear, however, that that is a long time in the future.
Our people have a long history of betting on just about anything, and there is no reason why they should not continue to do so, unless the bet is contrary to public policy. I could not contemplate that, for example, someone might bet on a person being murdered, and then go to the bookmaker to collect a large sum of money after having committed that murder. That would clearly be contrary to public policy. In the past, people bet on the outcome of cockfights. I would not approve of that, because that too would be contrary to public policy.
Some people bet on the result of elections. Such betting is not contrary to public policy, although it is not usually very profitable. Not long ago, however, I heard that, in a local election, a candidate--he was a sandwich-board man by profession--who had very little chance of winning put on his sandwich board a message to the electorate that they might do themselves a bit of good if they went along to the bookmakers and put a large sum of money on him to win the election. Many electors did just that, and he was elected.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes:
That is a very important point. My constituent, Screaming Lord Sutch, has bet on himself and on the number of votes that he might receive in the many by-elections he has stood in, and, in most cases, that is how he has paid his election expenses. It is a very good tradition.
Mr. Stephen:
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1267
I do not think that betting on the national lottery result can in any sense be said to be contrary to public policy. Having listened very carefully to the speeches earlier in this debate, I still hold that view and I therefore support the amendment.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean):
We have had an interesting and knowledgable debate. I do not know the sources of my colleagues' information on betting, the national lottery and the Tote, but they are clearly better informed on those matters than I was until I received my briefings on the subject.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) attempts to reverse an amendment made in another place. The words that he wants to remove are a necessary part of the Bill, and we cannot support the Bill without them. They establish that the new freedom of the Tote to take bets on non-sporting events does not extend to the national lottery. As drafted, the Bill ensures that the Tote is placed in the same position as other bookmakers in relation to the national lottery, and that is clearly right.
With all due respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is slightly misinformed on the effect that his amendment would have if passed. The amendment made in another place ensures that the Tote may not take bets on the national lottery. As I have said, that puts it on the same footing as other bookmakers prohibited from taking bets under the 1993 Act. However, the section of the 1993 Act that stops the Tote's betting subsidiaries, Tote bookmakers and Tote Direct, taking side bets on the national lottery would not stop the Tote board itself doing so. Therefore, the amendment made in the other place simply closes a legal loophole.
If the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale were passed--although I cannot accept it--it would recreate a legal loophole, in which Tote bookmakers and Tote Direct could not take bets on the lottery, whereas the Tote board could. We know that the Tote board would not exploit such a loophole, as Lord Wyatt, chairman of the Tote board, has given us that assurance. However, I think that it is preferable, as we are considering an Act, to close that loophole, to make statute law clear and not to have to rely on Lord Wyatt's assurance, although of course we entirely believe him.
Mr. John Greenway:
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I have heard that argument before.
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1268
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |