Local Plans (Public Consent)

Debate between Martin Horwood and Laurence Robertson

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) for introducing the debate and making many sensible points. The previous speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), touched on what I want to say right at the end of his speech, when he talked about the Planning Inspectorate perhaps not reflecting the Government’s intention. On 24 October last year, I held a debate in this Chamber that was well attended by a number of Members, each of whom made their own different points. My point then was that planning policy needed to be clarified. On the one hand, the Government were saying that we have to have loads more houses, but on the other, they were saying that we need to protect the green belt and such areas. The Minister, to his great credit, listened carefully to that debate and some while after that called a number of us together to present the clarification of the policy, particularly on unmet need and the impact that that could have on the green belt. He said that the green belt should take precedence. He also clarified the duty to co-operate when he said that it was not necessarily a duty to agree, if that meant that the green belt would be compromised. He made very many other clarifications, which were extremely useful.

My concern is on the extent to which the guidance is being followed by the Planning Inspectorate and the local councils that are putting together plans and joint core strategies in my area. To give an example of the problems in Tewkesbury, we have a great deal of green-belt land, many areas of outstanding natural beauty and an awful lot of flood-risk areas. Tewkesbury’s assessed housing need for the next 20 years is 10,900 houses, yet it is proposed that it will take 18,900. A lot of those houses will be built on the green belt, which I believe to be contrary to Government policy. I have taken that up with the local councils, and they fear that the inspectorate, which will look at the plan and say whether it is sound, will not follow the Minister’s guidance. That is what they genuinely feel. At this stage, it is difficult to say who is right, but the councils, although they do not want to build on the green belt or in flood-risk areas, feel that they might have to do that.

There are various recent inspectors’ reports—there was one just last week in Somerset—where the inspector appeared to disregard consideration for the green belt. I say “appeared”, because it was a rather confusing report, and much confusion surrounds the decision. In my area, there seems to have been a compromise on an area of outstanding natural beauty in an appeal that was allowed on a development of 50 houses in the village of Alderton. That does not sound like a lot, but it is a significant increase on the number of houses it has. Although it is an area of outstanding natural beauty, the inspector seemed to say that where there is unmet housing need, the AONB might have to be compromised. I believe that to be contrary to the Government’s policy. They have clearly said that unmet need should not outweigh any significant harm that might be caused to the green belt or other such areas.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I strongly support my hon. neighbour’s view that local councillors in all three councils have in effect been bludgeoned into voting for a very unpopular joint core strategy for Gloucestershire, because of the fear of the inspectorate, but it is not just about AONB and green belt. The only request for local green space status in the entire JCS area is at Leckhampton, in my constituency. It is supported by me, the Leckhampton Green Land Action Group and in great detail by Leckhampton and Warden Hill parish council. That request has not been so much refused as completely ignored by the joint core strategy team, thereby defying every consultation on the subject in the local area for the past 10 years, in which development has been universally opposed. I want the Minister to look specifically at that case, but I strongly support the points that my hon. neighbour is making.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

When the Government came to power they got rid of the regional spatial strategy system of planning, and that was welcomed. That was a good move. We introduced the Localism Act 2011, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) correctly said, people feel let down. They feel that the 2011 Act and the principle of localism have not delivered and do not look like they will deliver what people want.

Horse Racing (Funding)

Debate between Martin Horwood and Laurence Robertson

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robertson]

Just as many hon. Members anticipated my hon. Friend’s next statement, he has anticipated mine. The arrangement has to be consolidated and underpinned by the civil law, rather than by legislation. I entirely agree with him for a number of reasons, and the state aid issue is one. Another is that, if we are going commercial, we are going commercial—that is the way we should go. I understand his point. We have to bring offshore companies back onshore, but I would prefer to explore that through the way that I have described—perhaps by making it attractive for companies to do business in this country. We may need to go a little further than that, but it should certainly be explored.

On coming up with the commercial solution, I am not entirely convinced that the Government should decide the replacement for the levy. The Government have proposed three options, although I do not suppose that they are the only options that they would consider. However, there are other options that are perhaps not for the Government, but for racing and bookmakers, to put in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley talked about the increase in media rights. I understand that over the next year, from 2011-12 to 2012-13, they will increase by 26%. That could be considered different from the levy, but when an owner gets his cheque for £5,000 or £10,000, I do not think he is too concerned whether that has come from media rights, race courses, the levy or wherever; he is concerned about the size of that cheque. The whole cake is the important thing, not necessarily which particular segments have come from where.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I will not take up the Boundary Commission’s strange oversight in not including Cheltenham race course in the Cheltenham constituency this time. What does the hon. Gentleman think of the mechanism of having a requirement for all bookmakers, whether offshore or onshore, to hold a Gambling Commission licence in the UK? That Government proposal has merit, and I think the Jockey Club also supports it.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the Member for the Cheltenham constituency but not for the racecourse for his intervention. He makes a fair point that needs to be considered. The workings of the Gambling Commission are being looked at, which is a welcome step. That may be a way of tying people in, so that all bookmakers are caught up in the agreement that is eventually reached between racing and bookmakers. I hope that that could be explored.

On the commercial solution, I mentioned media rights. I also mentioned sponsorship, which is rarely discussed, although many bookmakers voluntarily put money into it—not only bookmakers, but many other companies. I am reliably informed by many in racing who are involved to trying to fund the sport that racing does not pursue sponsors and sponsorship as much, as often or as deeply as it could. That certainly needs exploring. It might not necessarily be part of a system or structure, but that money is available. Companies often sponsor more than just one sport: they might sponsor cricket and football and racing. That has to be further looked into.

Horse Racing Levy

Debate between Martin Horwood and Laurence Robertson

Thursday 20th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just winning the Cheltenham gold cup that is important. Horses do not start off running in the gold cup; they start off running in point-to-point races, before building up to races where the prize money is perhaps less than £2,000. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right about all the people involved in that. We cannot lose those feeder tracks or what I would describe as feeder racing.

We therefore have a problem, and I have reluctantly come to the view that the levy is an outdated system that has to be replaced. We have the problems of falling prize money, and owners running horses and not getting back a third of what they put in even when they are placed. All those problems exist under the present system, so the present system cannot be right. I have long felt that the existence of the levy does at least two things. First, it divides the people of racing. When I say “the people of racing”, I include the bookmakers, because many bookmakers, whether they are chief executives or work for Ladbrokes or Hill’s, are also racing people. However, each and every year, the levy negotiations serve to divide those people. We end up with this gratuitous violence, from one side to the other, which does racing no good. We saw what can be achieved when the whole of racing got together—for once—to promote Tony McCoy, who became BBC sports personality of the year, a much-deserved award. That is racing getting together—it is racing at its best—but the levy has served to divide it, each and every year.

The second thing that the existence of the levy has done is to allow racing not to address the need to find alternative funding as urgently as it might have done. There are alternative funding mechanisms and routes for money to come in; for instance, media rights is one way, while sponsorship is another. Racecourses take money from the public, and from sponsorship and hospitality. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was absolutely right to say that there might be a better income stream for racing from those sources in future. In 2004, when this House passed legislation to abolish the levy, it was not enacted—I understand that it is still on the statute book and can be enacted by a statutory instrument. At that time, there were negotiations and discussions on the then British Horseracing Board’s ability to sell its data rights to bookmakers in order to get money for racing.

That option was seen as a possible way forward. However, at that time, the European Union, being the wonderful organisation that it is, decided that this could not happen. It is now time to revisit that opinion, as expressed by the European Union—and, for the benefit of those reading this in Hansard, I was being sarcastic when I described it as a “wonderful organisation”. That decision has to be revisited, because I see a need to replace the levy. I have thought long and hard about this, and I think that the Minister probably ought to announce that the statutory levy will end in, let us say, three years’ time. That would give racing the opportunity to forge new relationships and develop new income streams, in the knowledge that the levy will no longer be there after a certain point. Setting a date will concentrate people’s minds, so that they have to come up with other funding mechanisms.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the motion, which is very welcome indeed. I welcome even more warmly his comments about Cheltenham race course, which is the world centre of jump racing—if it is not the favourite jump racing course of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), I am sure that, between us, we can secure him an invitation to the gold cup that will persuade him. However, does the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) think that structural changes in the betting industry, the media and even the technology involved in betting have contributed to the levy’s becoming outdated, and that both whatever replaces it and the governance structures that will come afterwards need to be sufficiently flexible to cope with future changes, so that we do not get locked into something that again becomes outdated as both industries move on?

[Mr Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that I am right in saying that when betting shops were licensed in 1963, about 100% of their income came from bets on horse racing or greyhounds. Now, if we put fixed odds betting terminals into the equation, the figure is as low as 35% in many cases. We have also had the internet and betting exchanges coming forward. None of that was seen or even thought of in 1963, so he is right. The world has moved on. Racing cannot go back to 1963 and say that it wants the same funding mechanism. I also entirely agree that when we decide on a replacement for the levy, we have to be flexible. That is why I would prefer more commercial arrangements, because they are, by necessity and by their very nature, flexible.