London Olympics Bill

There has not been a Chancellor in the recent past who has been more supportive of sport. The Central Council of Physical Recreation has been asking for mandatory rate relief for clubs for 30 years—now we have got it. The talented athlete scholarship scheme, which is investing into grassroots sport, came from the Chancellor. This Government’s investment in sport—through the Chancellor, with support from the Prime Minister—has been second to none. UK Sport is putting a case together, and if it is well argued I believe that there could be a positive response. Trying to bounce the Treasury is not the best way forward. Opposition Members have presented the proposal in the new clause to us before in various forms. It would make a special case for the Olympic lottery by providing for a form of tax rebate. There are two reasons why that cannot happen. First, as with all taxes, the Chancellor keeps lottery duty under review and gives due consideration to Budget representations made in the course of the Finance Bill process. As such, any changes in lottery duty should be considered in the context of a future Finance Bill, not this Bill. Secondly, the Government intend that the same principles that apply to the existing national lottery should apply to any Olympics-themed games. Camelot says that the lottery game has been hugely successful. I put on the record my thanks to all the people who are buying Olympics lottery tickets. That clearly demonstrates the support behind the Olympic bid. People have put their money where their mouths were, and the first £4 million has already been made. The principle of taxation in the national lottery was accepted by Parliament when the lottery was introduced—[Interruption.] I know that it was introduced by the Opposition. I do not intend to make political points about that because the lottery is one of our national institutions and it has all-party support. Nevertheless, we have made it clear that it will be taxed in the normal way. The £500 million that is collected by the Exchequer goes towards essential services such as schools, hospitals and the like, and it would be wrong to remove it. I hope that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) will reflect on the funding of elite as against grass-roots sport. I hope that he accepts that the right way to approach the Treasury is the way in which UK Sport is doing it, with a systematic analysis of what needs to be done in investing in elite sport to ensure that we move up the medals table. It is a little naive to say at this early stage that we will move from 10th to fourth without putting the funding mechanism in place. That is not the right way to go about it. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.