|
Mr. Foster: I want to pick up the Minister on what I am sure was a slip of the tongue that he will want to get off the record. He said that the new body would be lean and mean. We want it to be lean but, on this occasion, certainly not mean.
Mr. Caborn: That depends on how ''mean'' is interpreted. I am saying that it will be an effective decision-maker. It will be mean in the sense that it will make those decisions purposefully. It will keep to that ethos throughout. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Hawkins: It was useful to get the Minister to say that. I am grateful to him for putting on the record his recognition of what the previous Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, did for sport with the lottery. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Dissolution
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in
clause 32, page 17, line 8, at end insert—
'(aa) Paragraph (a) applies only on the basis that the net assets shall then all be used for the benefit of sport in the UK'.
The amendment concerns the question of what happens on the dissolution of the Olympic lottery distributor. I have already said that we hope that this will not be necessary until after a successful Olympic games in 2012.
We wanted to put forward an amendment to probe the Government and to suggest that the transfer of property rights or liabilities should go, as set out in the Bill, to the Secretary of State, or any other person, but, as the words of our proposed amendment suggest, only on the understanding that the net proceeds should be used for the benefit of sport in the UK. This is a genuine attempt to improve the wording of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will respect the spirit and intent of the words we seek to add. I do not claim any particular perfection in our drafting, and the Minister may well say that he is advised that the drafting may
Column Number: 132
not be quite right. If he cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he is able to say that it is the clear intention of the Government to ensure that whenever the Olympic lottery distributor is dissolved, the net assets arising from that dissolution will be provided for sport, and will not go into the all-encompassing maw of Her Majesty's Treasury.
Mr. Caborn: I can give no more explanation than I did before. We are looking seven, eight or nine years ahead. There may well be assets, such as property, that would not necessarily suit sport, so we would not wish to tie any assets down to a particular area. We believe that the formula in the Bill—the transfer of assets to the Secretary of State or other persons—is sufficiently broad to enable sport to benefit, and it would be at that time that sport could make its case. I have no doubt that in this arena, the Olympics, the vast majority of proceeds would go to sport in one way or another. The hon. Gentleman stated that the legacy of the Commonwealth games was, broadly speaking, to sport in general, and I see no difference between that case and this one. To tie it down too tightly, as the hon. Gentleman seeks to do through his amendment, would not be helpful, and for that reason I ask him to withdraw it.
Mr. Hawkins: I am slightly disappointed with what the Minister said. It is helpful that he has put on the record that he envisages that the vast majority of the money will probably be going to sport, but it would be helpful, given that we may be looking some years ahead, to have something in the Bill that guarantees that. Governments come and go, and it would be useful, if we are looking to 2012 or 2013, for the Bill to show what Parliament had in mind. We may need to pursue the matter further, on Report and in another place, but in order to preserve that opportunity, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Changes in Olympic procedure
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in
clause 35, page 20, line 1, at end insert—
'(2A) Any such order shall be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure of each House of Parliament.'.
The clause states:
''The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in consequence of a change effected after the passing of this Act in the arrangements made by the International Olympic Committee in relation to the Games of the Olympiad.''
We believe that such a wide power should be exercised only on the basis of an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. It is vital, even if the IOC changes things and the Secretary of State wants to make a change, that such matters come before the House for scrutiny. I have already mentioned, and the Minister has acknowledged, that the shadow of the dome and
Column Number: 133
its awful precedent hang ever before us when dealing with this area of government. We therefore need to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny, and requiring the affirmative resolution procedure would help a great deal.
Mr. Caborn: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, which is why we have made provision for what he has said in clause 36(4). On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
10.30 am
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I had not fully appreciated the link between clauses 35 and 36, but if the Minister assures me that that is the case—I see him nodding—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 36 to 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 39 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Hypothecation of tax receipts from Lottery to Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
During my winding up speech on Second Reading, I described this as the acid test for the Government. Those of us who were at the bid launch at the Royal Opera house heard the Prime Minister's fine words about the support that he and his Government had for the bid. However, the Minister referred a little while ago to what his mother used to say to him—a stitch in time saves nine. My Norfolk granny used to say, ''Fine words butter no parsnips.'' The Prime Minister's fine words will be taken seriously only if sport sees that the Government are doing everything that they can to provide funding.
If the Government were to forgo what would otherwise be their tax take on a new Olympic lottery game, and say that the money that would otherwise go to the Treasury would go to sport to support the 2012 London bid, we would know that they were doing all that they could. It is a test of whether the Minister and the Secretary of State are able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be possible. It seems to us, having consulted quite widely on the matter, that it would not create any problems for Camelot in relation to the operation of a new Olympic game. It is a decision for the Government.
Column Number: 134
If the Government were to say that they supported sport so much that they would be prepared to forgo what would otherwise be the tax take and hypothecate that revenue towards sport and the 2012 bid, the country would see that as a powerful signal. Certainly everyone in sport and those connected with the Olympic bid would see it as a powerful signal that the Government intend to stick to every word of what the Prime Minister said at the Olympic bid launch the other day. I am interested to hear what the Minister will say in response to the new clause. It would be a valuable opportunity for the Government. If the Minister cannot agree to it today, we shall pursue the matter on Report and in another place.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer that I shall give: lottery duty is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It has been a serious exercise, and we have learned from the problems that arose with the Commonwealth games. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I came into this job at a point when those games were in difficulties, and we had to pump about another £100 million into them to make them the success that they were. Therefore, when we started to consider the budget for an Olympics, we were mindful that we had to include major contingencies, so our calculations have been based on a 12 per cent. betting tax on the lottery. It would have been naive of us if they had not been. All the budget figures that went out at the start and were subsequently put to the Cabinet, and indeed to Parliament, included a contingency of about £1 billion. I do not believe that any bid for the Olympic games in recent years has gone in with that amount of contingency planning built into it, but we believe that it is sensible.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I talked to many people who had been deeply involved with bidding for and delivering Olympic games, and they said consistently that they wished that they had not undersold the project at the start. The advice from almost every one of them was ''Put more into it at the beginning. If you have to pay it back at the end, that is fine, but put the contingency in, because, in the public's mind, the day you go back for more money is the day that 'failure' is attached to the project.'' If a budget can be projected that is sensible and robust, as I believe ours is, that will hold good for the Olympics bid.
To some extent, that is why the IOC has commended us on the sensible way in which we have approached the financial packaging of the bid, which, as I said, is well worked out, transparent and robust. The calculation included a 12 per cent. betting tax, because we did not take the naive decision that we could turn the Chancellor round. Why do I say that? The hon. Gentleman takes great pride in the fact that the Conservative Government introduced the lottery in the mid-1990s. They put a 12 per cent. tax on it, and that is the level at which Chancellors have kept it. Therefore, to believe that we could change that on a relatively small part of the lottery would not be wise.
Column Number: 135
All the calculations have been based on 12 per cent., and we have included the contingency. The final decision is not for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. If the hon. Gentleman wants to challenge that, he will have every opportunity to do so on a future Finance Bill. That would be the appropriate place to do it, rather than on this Bill. We do not want to detract from our unity of purpose.
|
