Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

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.

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 Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

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.

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.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am disappointed with what the Minister has said, because he made it clear that there has been no serious attempt even to try to persuade the Chancellor. He said that this is how it has always been since the lottery started, but the point about the Bill is that an Olympic bid is something special. The new clause would have enabled the Government to establish their credentials.

I agree with what the Minister said about the good sense of contingencies. Who knows whether, after the next 48 hours' events, it will even be the same Prime Minister and the same Chancellor? The Government are not willing to contemplate that. As I have said, this is an issue that we shall want to pursue. We believe that the Olympic bid is special and that this would be a way in which the Government could show that it is special. For the Minister to say that this is not an issue for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but one that would have to be raised in a Finance Bill, is not good enough. We are saying that this would be a good opportunity for the Government to commit themselves to the Olympic bid to show that they really are taking every step to put the maximum amount of money behind the bid and towards sport. I am disappointed with the Minister's response but I shall not pursue the matter further today because we shall return to it on Report and in another place.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Illsley, and Mr. Sayeed for the efficient and effective way in which you have steered the Committee through its proceedings. I also put on record my thanks to the Clerks and the Hansard reporters, as well as the Doorkeepers and the police. It has not been an arduous Committee and I have been on Committees that have been slightly more lively than this one, but it has done an efficient and effective job and the outside world will have noted that and the unity of purpose. The probing through amendments was absolutely right and that probing will continue on Report and Third Reading. The Committee has clearly demonstrated the unity of purpose in what we are doing, particularly concerning the Olympics. I hope that that bodes well.

I also thank my old Back Benchers—

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth & Camborne, Labour)

Less of the old.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I am sorry. I thank my Back Benchers. We have also issued the odd press release, particularly on animal welfare. I thank them all, as well as the Opposition, who have made the Committee relatively easy and enjoyable.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

On behalf of the Opposition, Mr. Illsley, I mirror the Minister's comments. It has, as he said, been a relatively quiet Committee, not least because very few of his Back Benchers have contributed, other than on the animal welfare issue, although, according to the front page of The Independent, some of them may not be on his side for the rest of the day. We shall wait and see. I am not looking at the back of the Committee Room or anywhere else, Mr. Illsley, but I, too, would like you to pass on the Opposition's thanks to Mr. Sayeed and to the Clerks, the Minister's officials, the police and the Doorkeepers, all of whom have kept us going.

One of the critical points about the Bill is that, as we said clearly on Second Reading, there are no partisan politics in it, and we concur with the overall principle of the three separate issues. There is a great deal of detail, and we have taken note of all the occasions on which the Minister has said that he will go away and reconsider matters. I assure him that we will ask him whether he has done so and what his conclusions are, both in this place and in the other place. We look forward to his consideration of our detailed concerns.

We wish the Bill well in its overall import and we have no desire to detain the House of Commons in its consideration. We want it on the statute book so that the various measures within it, particularly those covering the sale of the Tote, can be implemented as soon as possible. That is one reason why we are here with a day and a half still in front of us despite what was a pretty truncated timetable. We got here quickly but we have addressed the issues. We shall need to address some of them again on Report and we hope, Mr. Illsley, that you will encourage Mr. Speaker, in his allocation of time, to allow us to do so. In the meantime, we look forward to reconsidering what the Minister has said and wish the Bill a speedy passage through the other place.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I, too, join the Minister in thanking you, Mr. Illsley, your colleague, Mr. Sayeed, and everyone else who made our deliberations possible.

I agree with the Minister, who said that the Committee has not been particularly lively because it covers a range of issues on which there has been a fair degree of agreement on both sides. As has been said, it has been a mixed Bill, covering three different issues: the Tote, the horserace betting levy and the Olympic lottery game. It was clever of the Olympic bid committee to find a way of drawing all that together by agreeing to have the Olympic beach volleyball event in Horse Guards road. There are clear links, and we all noted the Prime Minister's enthusiasm at the launch the other day when he praised the Olympic lottery bid team for arranging to have that beach volleyball

outside his bedroom window, although a different Prime Minister may benefit from that come 2012. Time will tell.

We have learned a lot in the Committee, despite little disagreement. We learned that where there is a fair amount of agreement, the number of letters that I can write to the current Mrs Foster is somewhat limited. She has received the odd postcard, but she has expressed some concern about my effectiveness in Committee. Be that as it may, we also learned that the Minister, who when he came into his new job at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said in an interview that he knew nothing about horse racing, has been a fast learner and has got himself up to speed on the matter.

We found interesting ways of getting various words into Hansard that do not seem to be relevant. I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on getting the word ''parsnips'' on to the record. I was trying to find a way of getting ''cheese'' on to it. I am sure that, bearing in mind the speed with which we carried out our deliberations, we shall remember that wonderful phrase about the early bird that catches the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. That is worth thinking about.

We also learned not to trust certain phrases from some hon. Members. We all know not to trust the phrase about the cheque being in the post, and I was not entirely convinced when the hon. Member for Surrey Heath began a contribution by saying that he would be brief. The record will show that he said that on a number of occasions.

As the time and the day of the week demonstrate—it being Tuesday and not 5 o'clock on Thursday—the Committee has made great progress and has been very successful. I hope that the Olympic bid will be as successful as we have been in Committee.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), my co-Chairman, I thank hon. Members for their kind comments. This has been a well-behaved and good-humoured Committee and as lively as we would like it to be. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, not forgetting Mrs Foster. It remains for me to thank the Hansard reporters, the Attendants, the police and our Clerk.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.