2.30 pm

The meeting was held on Friday and Saturday and brought in 10,000 people - 3,000 on Friday and 7,000 on Saturday. If it had been held on Saturday and Sunday I have no doubt that the figure would have been closer to 40,000. People would not have been at work, and they could have chosen whether to go to the meeting.

We need to focus on what this is about. It is not just about on-course betting on a Sunday; it is about allowing bookmakers to be competitive in the light of the other laws and legislation that have been introduced regarding the lottery. It should be looked at in the context of the significant growth of Internet and offshore tax-free betting, something that has been introduced in the last two years. If you have a digital television you can access it that way as well as through a computer.

This morning I heard the hon Member for North Down, Mr McCartney, along with others, talking about the smuggling of petrol back and forward across the border. We are continually hearing about the disadvantages facing industry along that border. One of the disadvantages is that the Irish Republic has reduced its tax from 10% to 5%, and betting shops in border towns are going to the wall. These are things we need to take into consideration.

Let us remember that all of these things are happening around us while we fail to bring forward legislation. Going back to Mr S Wilson's arguments about the legislative timetable, I always thought that that was the responsibility of the Business Committee, not an individual Minister. As a member of the Business Committee, I, along with his party's Whips, have criticised Departments for not bringing forward legislation. There have been weeks in this House when there has been no new legislation. I understand what Mr Wilson is saying, and I support him with regard to dealing with life-and-death issues - homelessness, for example. We need to bring those forward. However, we need to be realistic. There is other legislation that is not any less important, particularly for the tourist industry and for jobs - 150 jobs could be lost if this legislation is not brought forward.

The Minister for Social Development has this legislation sitting on his desk. He has made a reasonable point that he does not believe it should be brought forward - the same point made in Mr Wilson's amendment. The review in Great Britain has got nothing to do with on-course betting or gaming machines. There was a long- lasting consultation period when the views of the public, the bookmakers and others were sought. As a result of that consultation it was decided that there should be fourteen amendments, and both the Minister of State, Mr Adam Ingram, and the then Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr Tony Worthington, decided that those should be brought forward. Then we had devolution, and all of these amendments were put on the back burner until after the review. Unless the Minister brings forward this legislation we are in great danger of losing 150 jobs in the betting-shop industry. These are viable, well-paid jobs that we should be supporting.

Finally, with regard to the legislation covering people working on Sunday, the Minister of State, Mr Ingram, has already put that forward, and it is in this package. Whether it is with the Minister for Social Development or with Sir Reg Empey is immaterial. It is there.

I ask the House to support my amendment and these 150 jobs. If we do not act quickly they will be lost.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Due to the number of Members wanting to contribute and the time needed at the end for the movers of the amendments and the motion, I ask that Members restrict their contributions to six minutes. I will give a warning when there are 30 seconds left.

The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Ms Gildernew):

Go raibh maith agat. I rise to support the motion which calls for the Minister for Social Development, Mr Maurice Morrow, to legislate to allow Sunday racing and on-site betting.

While I do not have a problem with the amendment in Mr Billy Hutchinson's name, or its content, I believe that that is a separate motion which could be brought forward in its own right. It is important to debate Sunday racing and on-site betting first.

Sunday racing has been in existence in the Twenty-six Counties since 1986. It started with a modest six fixtures, and there are now more than 50 Sunday meetings. Statistics provided by the Irish Horse Racing Authority show that Sundays have the highest attendance figures of all the days in the week, with more than 335,000 people attending Sunday fixtures in Ireland last year. An estimated 23,000 people are employed full-time in the Irish horse racing industry; exports of our thoroughbred horses are worth more than IR£100 million per annum, and 50,000 visitors travel to Ireland specifically to attend race meetings. Should we not capitalise on the potential for growth in this industry in the Six Counties as well?

Given the pressures in our lives, and the fact that many of us work on Saturdays, it is not surprising that leisure activities are in big demand on Sundays. Gaelic football is the biggest sport in Ireland. Clubs and parishes all over the country compete at every level in not only this sport, but hurling and camogie as well. These matches are occasions enjoyed by all the family, and the atmosphere at county and provincial championship games is fantastic, rivalled only by the all-Ireland finals themselves. These games have a huge following and are a great excuse for a weekend away. However, I wonder just how many of us could find time to go to matches if they all took place on a Saturday or a Friday afternoon.

Earlier this month we had the annual fixture at Down Royal, which was a great success, not just for the horse racing fraternity and the patrons who attended it, but also for the local hotels, bed and breakfasts, pubs and shops. Spectator facilities at both Down Royal and Downpatrick are excellent, as all profits are reinvested, yet these resources are used for a total of 19 days a year. If the racing industry staged only seven Sunday meetings a year, it is reckoned that 47,000 people would attend, with 17,000 from outside the Six Counties. The estimated loss to the industry is around £8·5 million per annum, and this does not include ancillary industries which would also benefit.

Why should this industry be deprived of extra, much- needed income because of the Minister's and the DUP's failure to move into the twenty-first century with the rest of us? The fundamental bigotry of Maurice Morrow and Nigel Dodds before him is the only reason why this issue has been put on the long finger. The DUP is famous for saying "No". For many years its members have said this in councils all over the Six Counties: "No. You can- not go to the swimming pool on the day of rest, for we have closed the leisure centre. No. You cannot play with your ball, as it is a Sunday. You cannot play on the swings; we have chained them up to ensure that children do not enjoy themselves on the sabbath. No. We will not allow you to enjoy horse racing on a Sunday". Despite what the Minister says, that is the only reason why this legislation has not yet been introduced. The Six Counties is the last remaining area of the European racing industry that does not have Sunday racing, putting the industry here at a great disadvantage.

The wide-ranging review of gambling in England that Mr S Wilson referred to is not even likely to recommend changes to Sunday racing. Its remit is to concentrate on the impact of e-commerce, interactive television, worldwide media rights and offshore gambling, and could take five years between consultation and implementation. How much money will have been lost by the racing industry in that time? How much money will Maurice Morrow have lost the industry in that time? How much damage will he have done to our tourism industry? How many jobs could have been created?

Given that Sunday racing has also been extremely popular in England since it was introduced in 1995 - the number of fixtures has increased from 12 to 62 - I am surprised that the Minister, who has been keen on so-called parity legislation to date, is not willing to introduce this. The support for this issue today should prove to the racing industry that the Assembly will do all it can to update the legislation. Sinn Féin will be supporting the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr McCarthy:

We should ask the business managers to extend these debates. Six minutes is a very short time.

I am neither a betting man nor a horsey man, but I know a winner when I see one. If the horse breeding and horse racing industries had been properly supported by the Government, they would be winners. However, we have the opportunity to achieve that now.

Shortly after devolution, following representations from the horse racing fraternity I raised the subject with the previous Minister for Social Development. As a fervent supporter of devolution, I was disappointed by the response that I got from the Minister, who was also a supporter of devolution. If the Good Friday Agreement had not been signed, we would still have had direct rule administered from London by cross-channel Ministers, and all the betting and gaming laws in Northern Ireland would have been modernised.

On 7 January 1998 the Health and Social Services Minister, Tony Worthington, issued a statement. It said

"The Government intend shortly to bring forward legislation to provide a number of modest relaxations in legislative controls on betting and gaming in Northern Ireland".

The Minister goes on to say

"I would stress, however, that this is a limited relaxation of the law on Sunday betting. People can choose for themselves whether they wish to go to the racetrack to bet on a Sunday, or not".

That statement shows the respect that the Minister had for everyone's wishes. It was a genuine attempt to keep everyone in Northern Ireland happy - a difficult job at the best of times.

Mr Worthington's decision followed 12 months of consultations. As the creation of a new Assembly was just around the corner, the Minister decided to leave the changes to local politicians. Unfortunately, the new Ministers were not prepared to go along with their predecessors and delayed the process. The excuse used was that a new review was taking place across the water. I thought that devolution meant that we could rule ourselves and make legislation for the people of Northern Ireland. Every citizen has rights. If people wish to bet on a horse on Sundays, it is their right to do that.

There would also be enormous loss of revenue for the business people who run racing facilities. Recreation is a necessity for everyone. People are able to attend almost any sporting fixture on a Sunday, and we should not deny them such a basic right. We should not deprive the racing industry of the custom of the visitors that we are trying to attract to Northern Ireland. Such discriminatory action is unjustified and must be put right.

I want to turn the discussion away from the question of whether individuals should or should not bet on a Sunday. Instead, I wish to examine the experiences of racetrack owners and workers and those of the owners of betting establishments and their staff. At present, people can watch races on a Sunday and can place bets on them using the Internet, their televisions or their mobile phones. Nothing that the Assembly does today will be able to stop people placing a bet.

The present law puts up an unfair - possibly illegal - barrier that prevents racetrack owners and gambling establishments from pursuing their business. The Assembly should change that. In the Republic of Ireland people can bet on a Sunday; in England they can bet on a Sunday; and they can bet using their phones and computers. However, in Northern Ireland, they cannot bet at a racetrack. Given such damaging restrictions, Northern Irish businesses cannot compete.

2.45 pm

Let us consider the multimillion pound horse racing industry south of the border. European law dictates that we must not infringe on our businesses' ability to operate and compete. The present law violates the right of businessmen, businesswomen and workers to seek to earn a living while existing in a common and unified market. I quote from an article in last Monday's edition of 'The Times' which stated that

"The Down Royal has been raised from poverty, decay and stigma of being overlooked by the observation towers of the most notorious of jails. For decades this area had been farmed, feared, but not properly lived in. Now the Maze is empty and a community that dares to lift its head has its own race festival."

This is excellent news. We have a duty to move forward together, and the Assembly should support the motion.

Mr C Wilson:

The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to retain the very special nature of the Ulster Sunday. For most, it is a day of rest or, if not, one of worship. Over the last five years, in particular, the unique nature of this day has been greatly eroded by the introduction of the Sunday opening of large shopping complexes and the seven-day opening of pubs. Now the latest intrusion is a motion to propose seven-day gambling at racecourse tracks.

What is driving the lobby that we witness today from the proponent of the motion? Reference has been made to the situation in other regions of the United Kingdom, and there seems to be a suggestion that we should follow suit. I read with interest the comments by Mr Ian Morrison, who has researched this matter and has suggested that shortly after the Government introduced legislation on the mainland to permit horse racing and on-course betting on the Lord's Day, a large number of bookmakers took up that option. In a small number of months, however, many of them had decided that it was not worthwhile. There was not the demand that they had been led to -

Mr P Robinson:

Will the Member give way?

Mr C Wilson:

No, I am sorry, I will not.

The really sad aspect is that Mr Bradley has said publicly that it is his view that horse racing without betting is pointless - flat, boring and uninteresting were, I think, his exact words. This is not the view, I am sure, of all those who are involved in the sport of horse racing. It is a sad reflection on society in Northern Ireland, across the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic that there is now a link between sport and practices such as gambling and the promotion of alcohol and tobacco on which it depends.

I appeal to Mr Bradley and to those in a position of authority in sporting bodies and areas related to sport to refuse to allow the promotion of alcohol, tobacco and the culture of gambling and betting. Even if they do not care for themselves, their immediate kith and kin or their generation, I appeal to them to think of the young people and of the influence on them of these things that are detrimental to their well-being. Gambling is an increasing problem across the United Kingdom, particularly among young people. Those in a position of authority should take a lead on this issue. The Government's introduction of legislation to permit the national lottery was detrimental to our society and to our people across the United Kingdom - this is not the line we should be taking.

The only argument that I have heard in support of the motion from the other side of the House and from Mr Hutchinson related to the economic effect. I do not believe that this point was well-argued or that the economic impact was well-researched. There was a notional idea that it might be good for tourism.

I believe that we have a duty and a responsibility to give a lead. I will not be perturbed by whatever the review in the United Kingdom may show or by whatever proposals may come forward as a result. My guiding star shall always be that I want the best of British, but I will not follow sheep-like in simply endorsing their legislation. If there is any merit in people in Northern Ireland having control over their own affairs, it is that we can use an elected forum such as the Assembly to give a lead and set standards that other regions may decide are worth following.

The views expressed in support of the motion have looked only at the so-called economic benefits. In line with comments made by yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to other matters, I suggest that people should consider what is best for family values and for families in Northern Ireland. Keep Sunday a special day - a day of recreation. We should not allow further erosion of our particular heritage and ethos and a strong cultural trend in Northern Ireland. The matter should be put to the people of Northern Ireland, and the resounding answer would undoubtedly be to keep Sunday special.

Mr McCartney:

It is unfortunate that the time for speaking is limited to six minutes, as the motion gives rise to some of the most fundamental views of our political life in Northern Ireland. Unlike Mr B Hutchinson, I have no personal or family record of placing bets on or off racecourses on Sunday or any other day. I give my unequivocal support both to the motion and to Mr Hutchinson's amendment.

I am not just a Unionist, I am a pluralist. I believe that the fundamental nature of a democracy is that we must not use the institutions of the state to provide some sort of fire brigade or police force for delivering the moral, ethical or religious dictates of any religion. I fought against that in my criticism of successive Governments of the Republic of Ireland and their oppressive, Catholic theology in relation to social and economic matters. Equally, I am not prepared for some dark Protestant cloud of sabbatarianism to descend upon the Assembly.

I will not rehearse the economic or, indeed, the tourism arguments for introducing the legislation. They have been well and fully stated by those who support the motion and relatively poorly negatived by some of those who would oppose it.

I was saddened by the argument of Mr Sammy Wilson, whose intelligence and sense of humour I have always admired, that all of us, including myself, bring some narrow argument to the motion. I bring nothing to the debate except my experience as a senior member of the Bar in many licensing and other applications and a knowledge of the bookmaking and racing industry of which some others may be deprived. Therefore, any suggestion that I have any narrow interest as a punter or that I have been lobbied by anyone who has influenced my views is just nonsense. I did not receive the round robin to which the Member referred.

Sammy Wilson's arguments did not do him any credit. It is fallacious to argue that implementing this particular piece of legislation would in some way bar social matters of much greater importance, such as the Housing Bill, from being dealt with. That is nonsense. It is the setting up of an Aunt Sally; an argument that no one made and that can therefore be knocked down.

He made a second point about waiting for the review. We have already had a review. It was carried out by the relevant Ministers, and they made recommendations, including this one. It is nonsensical to have a law that prevents on-course betting in a society in which people can bet on anything - even two flies walking up the wall - on a Sunday.

The review in England is unlikely to suggest anything other than an extension of bookmaking and, perhaps, a more draconian control of off-course bookmaking through the Internet. Let us be clear as to the real purpose behind the opposition to the motion. It was perhaps most vividly - or luridly - exposed in the speech of Mr Cedric Wilson. I will not be betting; I will not be at the course. In a perfect world, if I had my way, there probably would not be any gambling. However, as a pluralist, I will defend to the last the right of those who wish to gamble to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a democratic society, provided that they do not harm or interfere with others. On that basis, I hope that the House will give its support to Mr Bradley's motion and Mr Hutchinson's amendment.

Mr ONeill:

Members have referred to the historic link between racing and the island of Ireland, and one Member suggested that Northern Ireland has had racing for 315 or 316 years. That is correct. We have two well-established race courses here - the Maze and Downpatrick - both of which have been remarkably successful and have shown a 30% growth in attendance figures. That indicates the potential in ordinary, everyday racing. Racing is organised on an all-Ireland basis, and it would not be unreasonable to put the value of the racing industry as a whole at £1 billion. Three thousand people are employed in the industry. It is economically very significant. So far, no Member has seriously challenged those facts, and there is no point in my going over them. Many Members have spoken ably about them.

I would like to concentrate on the amendment. The problems with the amendment were highlighted by the Member for North Down (Mr McCartney). Initially, Mr Sammy Wilson introduced the amendment with great enthusiasm but, as he went on, he seemed to run out of steam.

Mr Wilson's argument had a certain transparency. He talked about the time needed for scrutiny in Committee and the difficulties for the Committee in determining priorities. Perhaps, he had forgotten that we did not receive the courtesy of a consultation from the previous Social Development Minister. He went off without consulting the Committee, and decided not to implement the legislation. Dismissing the Committee and its work in that way could be described as a discourtesy. However, it is much worse than that: the Minister was imposing his moral and religious views on everyone else, removing their freedom of conscience and freedom of choice.

3.00 pm

I say that because while Mr Wilson referred to the terms of reference, which are readily available, he failed to refer to them in depth. He did not explore the fact that the issues under examination are far removed from the subject of Sunday racing, which will not feature at all in the deliberations. It is the extension of course betting into shops, pubs and clubs to provide a greater liberalisation of the existing situation, which will be under consideration. This will not affect Sunday racing, as the Minister was attempting to suggest. The position was a tenacious one, which was taken because he wanted his views to have an impact on the rest of us.

There are other important issues on which I will comment. From my experience in the Down Council area, I am aware of the potential for the tourist promotion of Downpatrick racecourse. We have worked on this and we have seen the potential of the racecourse to increase the income of local businesses with overnight stays in the area.

If Sunday racing were to take place on our two racecourses, there would be a possible increase in visitors by around 17,000. Even more significant is the potential for a series of meetings between the two courses, which would create a complete weekend of racing, attracting an even greater number of participants and followers. Sunday race meetings would provide many options for the tourist industry. Many possibilities exist, and to fail to take on board this motion would be very wrong.

I have plenty more to say but I see that you have risen to your feet, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will simply conclude by saying that I support the motion.

Mr P Robinson:

There have indeed been some Aunt Sallies dragged into this debate. Straw men have been set up and then knocked down. I am glad that my friendship with Mr McCartney is such that it will see us through a disagreement on this matter, but I do disagree. The issue of the Lord's Day observance is not one that I heard Mr S Wilson raise. It is not one that I heard Mr Dodds advance when it was first raised with him. Nor was it one that I heard Mr Morrow advance when, recently, he expressed views on and cast judgement on the issue. Nevertheless, the issue has been brought into this debate by Sinn Féin, which has told us of the glories of the GAA and camogie that happen every Sunday. There is no reason for introducing this issue.

As far as I know, there is no ban on horse racing in Northern Ireland on a Sunday. Horse racing, as a sport, can take place. The view, which seems to be endorsed by Mr Bradley, is that horse racing is not a sport unless you can bet on it. That seems to be the bottom line, and that throws into question how much of a sport horse racing is, when it is the winning or losing of money that is central to it.

I will also deal with the Aunt Sally brought in by Mr ONeill, who suggested that there was discourtesy on the part of the previous Minister because he had not brought the issue before the Committee. That is absolute nonsense. The Minister goes to the Committee if he is going to make changes. He gets hundreds of letters every day and every week, but he does not go to the Committee to ask for its view on matters that he does not intend to change. Rather, he goes to the Committee if he does intend to effect change. The matter of prioritising the business of the Social Development Department is what is essential - it is the key issue in this debate.

The motion asks for legislative change, which requires legislative time, and that means Assembly time to see a Bill through from beginning to end. It means Committee time to scrutinise it properly, and it means legislative draftsmen's time. A Bill should not be started unless it can be finished. The Assembly has to prioritise its business, and if something new is to be inserted into the legislative programme, something else will have to be removed.

When the House debated the Programme for Government, the SDLP made no suggestions or proposals. No change was asked for; no amendment was put down, and there was no reference during the course of the debate to this vital change that it now seeks. It is a matter of prioritising business. I can recall nothing in the statement by Mr Dodds, or indeed in the statement by Mr Morrow, to suggest that there should never be changes to the betting law in Northern Ireland. From time to time there will be changes. If you intend to have a comprehensive change in the betting law in Northern Ireland, let it be after all available expertise has been drawn from the review that is currently under way. One comprehensive piece of legislation is required rather than a piecemeal proposal.

A Member:

Will the Member give way?

Mr P Robinson:

I did not see the Member give way when he had his six minutes, and I am certainly not about to give way to him in mine. If he made an inadequate speech, he can kick himself afterwards.

The Member has come forward with one piece of legislation. The appropriate time to do that is when all information is available. The present Minister and his predecessor took the intelligent and rational approach of not determining the future until all evidence was available. I wish others would adopt that position before making pronouncements. When Mr Bradley comes to wind up, I wonder if he will explain to us this new motion on the issue of on-course betting. I think he now realises that if his proposals are accepted, he will have created problems. Presumably someone has contacted him and said "Look, what do you think you are doing? You are going to cause us difficulties."

He has another motion down in the Assembly asking the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to bring forward legislation on employment protection rights for these people he suggests should be working on Sundays. If you choose to go half-cocked at these issues without scrutinising them fully, these are exactly the kind of problems you will have.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr P Robinson:

In conclusion, neither the present Minister nor his predecessor has said anything that has ruled out change. Change comes after proper analysis, when the review is complete and the Assembly has dealt with it in one comprehensive piece of legislation rather than by way of this piecemeal approach that has been proposed by the SDLP.

Mr M Murphy:

Go raibh maith agat. I rise to support the motion. Horse racing is a major industry on the island of Ireland. The horse racing industry is worth IR£1 million per year to the Irish economy. The export of Irish thoroughbreds accounts for IR£100 million each year. Twenty-three thousand people are employed full-time in the industry. There are two racetracks in the Six Counties, Downpatrick, in my constituency, and Down Royal. The tracks have received substantial grants from the horse-racing fund administered by the Department of Agriculture. These grants are funded by an annual licence fee that is levied on bookmakers' shops and on on-course licensed bookmakers.

Racing is a 32-county sport, administered by the Irish Horse Racing Authority. There is no parity of esteem regarding the two local tracks while their counterparts in the rest of Ireland have the privilege of Sunday racing. Downpatrick and Down Royal are deprived of much needed funding for the upkeep of their courses, which Sunday racing would provide. The local economy would also benefit from much needed finance. What do we say, while there are so many people in certain parts of our community opposed to Sunday opening? They are the "No" voters, the "No tampers" in our society. No sport on a Sunday; no anything. You do as I say, not as I do.

However, if I want to go down Garvaghy Road on a Sunday - [Interruption].

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Order.

Mr M Murphy:

- and protest, I will do so, but you are not to go to horse racing. My local track needs our support for Sunday racing. Its overheads are enormous. Sunday racing would provide much needed finance towards the survival of Downpatrick racecourse. It would also bring massive employment, tourism and much needed income into the local economy. I ask the House to support the motion.

Mr Ervine:

Quite a number of very good points have been made, of which Mr McCartney's contribution was probably the most enlightening and responsible. That shows what the House is about - making law that is beneficial to society, so that its citizens may enjoy the interests they wish to pursue provided they do not harm others. Treating Sunday as a day of choice, rather than as a day of enforcement, would offer a degree of competition, and not just between racetracks in Northern Ireland and those on the island of Ireland. It would allow people to make up their minds about where they wish to go, when they wish to go and if they wish to go. They can choose to go horse racing; they can choose offshore betting on the Internet; or they can choose to go to church. They should not be precluded from doing any of those. In fact, dare I say it, I know people who, if they had the choice, would do all three. And as a minister of religion struggles with his economic difficulties, he might be pleased to see them in church rather than enforce some form of embargo that said "Because you go to Sunday racing you cannot come into my church."

One of the shining lights on the periphery of my constituency has been the Dundonald Icebowl. The joy and appreciation that our society has experienced in its hallowed halls -

A Member:

On a Sunday.

Mr Ervine:

And why not? Peter Robinson's rearguard defence of the Minister was quite commendable -[Interruption].

Is that for me?

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Order.

3.15 pm

Mr Ervine:

Mr Robinson's rearguard action in defence of the Minister is commendable. However, regardless of how articulate and well-argued his position may be, we do not believe that that is the real reason why the Ministers, both the present one and his predecessor, have taken the decision that they have.

Why not allow the people of Northern Ireland to be treated as big boys and big girls? Why not allow us to decide? The legislation is not complex - as far as racing is concerned, it simply makes Sunday like every other day of the week. The DUP cannot do that. They offer us the belief that a legislative Assembly should not make legislation - or at least not too much of it - and not too much of it back to back. We might have to work extra hours, or perhaps an extra couple of days, and the Committees might have to work a little harder, but the public will have to wait. That applies to anything that society wants with which the DUP has any ideological difficulty - perhaps beating the kids in schools. What happens if we end up with a protest against a decision made by a DUP Minister - in this case outside a racetrack - and the protester a Free Presbyterian? We could not have that, could we? Effectively, that is what this is about.

Without question there are secular people in the DUP, and I recognise them and know who they are, but there is a core belief within the Democratic Unionist Party that does not allow society to make decisions based on the fact that people in it are big boys and big girls.

However, there is hope for the racing industry. The swings used to be locked on Sunday, and they are not now; similarly the pubs used to be closed on Sunday, but they are not now. In respect of the changing circumstances of a new society, it has lost every battle it has taken on. So there will be racing, and I advocate it, and you can bet there will be an illegal bookmaker, and then what are you going to do - get the RUC to go in and close it down?

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Order.

Ms Lewsley:

I support the motion for a number of reasons that have both a social and economic impact. Much could be done to bring Northern Ireland racecourses, in particular Down Royal in my constituency, into line with those in the Republic and across the water. This would increase tourism and promote the existing amenities in the surrounding areas.

First, there is the potential of an increase in positive publicity for the area. Traditionally there is much local interest in racing, and the press, radio and television stations give regular coverage to the sport. Many excellent local jockeys have gained international recognition. In recent years four Grand National winners and four Cheltenham Gold Cup winners have come from Northern Ireland.

Secondly, there are social aspects. Racing can move away from its previous negative image towards a more popular family-orientated leisure pursuit and as a result of this, could have a significant impact on the local economy. For example, many visitors to racetracks here come from England and all over Ireland. While events are taking place - especially two-day events - there will be an increase in the demand for hotel beds. For instance, during the recent two-day event at Down Royal, an estimated 2,800 beds were booked. The increase in bookings in local restaurants will also help to create more jobs in the hospitality industry, especially at off-peak times during the year.

Lisburn Borough Council jointly promoted this successful festival of racing at the beginning of November. There were over 10,000 out-of-town visitors, and the total spend on accommodation and food alone was in the region of £0·5 million. These figures exclude other activities like shopping, evening entertainment and visitors going to some of our tourist attractions. There is also the increase in trade for local shops and shopping centres. If families are encouraged to come along to race meetings, many will go shopping locally, with the knock-on effect of increased trade in the area.

Local industries related to the racecourse would also stand to gain from an increase in the demand for improvement of facilities and maintenance of the courses - electricians, painters, tack shops, farriers and so forth. The disadvantages that our racecourses operate under, in comparison to those in the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain, need to be addressed. Tax levied on betting in Northern Ireland amounts to £14·5 million per annum, but not one penny is returned to our racecourses, being spent instead on courses in England and Scotland.

Sunday racing and on-course betting could bring courses in Northern Ireland into line with competitors in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Europe. Currently, approximately 20% of people who attend events in the South come from Northern Ireland. It is a family day out for many. People wishing to gamble on a Sunday can do so on the telephone, on the Internet, or through digital television, as Billy Hutchinson said.

This extension would not be unrealistic. There would only be a few meetings each year. We are not asking for the promotion of gambling, but rather the promotion of a huge industry and a family leisure pursuit. The cost to our economy if we choose to ignore this issue will be enormous. We need to maximise investment in the economy by bringing it into line with our neighbours. I support the motion.

Mr J Kelly:

I support the motion, a LeasCheann Comhairle. When I was a young man, I knew of a renowned Unionist politician. He was a barrister, but he is not in this Assembly. Every year on the Twelfth of July he would park his car at the back of the city hall and join the parade at Carlisle Circus. On the way back to the field, he would leave the parade at the city hall, take off his bowler hat and sash, get into his Jaguar and head for the Dundalk races. That was how he celebrated the Twelfth of July each year.

There is a fundamental puritanism which says that what you enjoy should be done furtively, in the dark, or behind a closed door. David Ervine is right. The Brylcreemed and pink-faced hypocrites of morality in this debate have no other argument than that of the whited sepulchre - white and shining on the outside, but rotten on the inside. Bob McCartney mentioned the dark cloud of Protestant puritanism that denies people the right to enjoy themselves. That was the way it was in the days I spoke of, and that is how it would have remained had we given up what they called a priest- ridden society for a Paisley-ridden society. The DUP wishes to make people live by a new puritanical dispensation by which its members do not abide in their private lives.

Horse racing is the sport of kings, enjoyed by most people who have an outgoing attitude to life. They are not afraid to enjoy themselves in public, not afraid to go to race meetings, either on a weekday or a Sunday, and are not afraid to bet on a horse race -[Interruption].

Mr P Robinson is right. This debate is not about horse racing on a Sunday - it is about having a bet on a Sunday -[Interruption].

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Order.

Mr J Kelly:

Your magic is working, Madam Deputy Speaker. The rabble has subsided.

I shall go on, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is interesting that at the last Down Royal meeting the sponsors and those who promote racing at the course were delighted to invite the racing fraternity from all over England, Scotland, Wales and the Twenty-six Counties. They brought both horses and people of some renown to the meeting, the former group including Florida Pearl, Doran's Pride and Looks Like Trouble. The last horse mentioned, which won the Cheltenham Gold Cup last year, was foaled in south Armagh.

Mr P Robinson:

Tell us about Shergar.

Mr J Kelly:

If you have the time, I shall.

Mr P Robinson:

Tell the police.

Mr J Kelly:

No, I shall leave that to you.

Looks Like Trouble was foaled in south Armagh on a night when there was a great deal of British Army helicopter activity. People were trying to decide the name of the horse at the time, and the owner looked up and said "I think we shall call it 'Looks Like Trouble'." That remark reminds me of the people before me, who not only look for trouble, but also look like trouble. I support the motion.

The Minister for Social Development (Mr Morrow):

I have listened with interest to the comments made, some of them well-informed, some ill-informed. There were some good speeches, and some were read well. Some were not read so well, and some were misinformed. We have had the whole range today, and I suspect that it will all generate more heat than light. It is patently obvious that some of those who have spoken today have not done so from a knowledge, but that would be nothing new in an Assembly such as this.

Perhaps it would be helpful to Members if I tried to elucidate some of the confusion. There is no legislative impediment whatsoever to racing on a Sunday. Certain learned people in the Chamber seem to be ignoring that fact; perhaps they have forgotten it, or think it insufficiently important to state it. Sunday racing has been legal since August 1996, but racing interests do not consider it financially viable without betting facilities. Are we discussing a sport or a commercial industry here today? Some people seem to be talking about different things.

The motion is specifically directed at the provisions in article 48 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 prohibiting Sunday betting on racetracks. The Order also prevents Sunday betting in licensed bookmaking offices. I was not, of course, party to the considerations which led to the prohibition on Sunday betting, but I view it as an acknowledgement that, for many people in Northern Ireland, Sunday has special significance.

My predecessor as Minister for Social Development, Mr Dodds, decided earlier this year not to proceed with the package of betting and gaming changes announced by the previous Administration before the outcome of the current review of gambling law in Great Britain. The package included a change to allow on-course Sunday betting together with new employment protection rights for track-betting workers. The employment protection aspect now falls within the remit of the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.

I wish to make it very clear that I fully support Mr Dodds's decision, both generally and in relation to the specific issue of on-course Sunday betting.

3.30 pm

The amending legislation required to remove the prohibition would be subject to the full Assembly procedure for primary legislation, and would inevitably take time. It would be completely irresponsible to submit proposals for legislative changes on this issue to the Assembly at a time when a comprehensive review of gambling law is being undertaken in Great Britain, which is likely to have implications for Northern Ireland. To suggest using valuable Assembly time to pursue an issue of only limited interest to the people of Northern Ireland would clearly be considered by many to be an inefficient use of resources.

I have a wide range of ministerial responsibilities for the community at large. There are many pressing issues affecting a large number of vulnerable and needy people throughout Northern Ireland. At this time, my priorities remain the much-needed reform of legislation covering housing and street trading and, as Members know, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act, which has now received Royal Assent.

The Housing Bill alone runs to more than 200 clauses and represents an intensive piece of work for my Department, the Social Development Committee and this Assembly. It will make important and much needed provisions for homelessness, antisocial behaviour, housing for travellers, housing in multiple occupation, the right for housing association tenants to buy their homes, and more targeted grants to enable us to tackle unfitness.

For these reasons, I cannot support the motion. I am confident that, having heard my reasons, Members will support the amendment and endorse my decision not to give further consideration to a change in the law until I have considered the implications for Northern Ireland of the current gambling review in Great Britain.

I will now deal with specific points raised by some Members. First, I want to make an important general point. I want everyone to listen to it, particularly those who support the changes. Not one individual has contacted my Department, either by phone or in writing, and said that it is time to change the legislation, other than those deemed to have a vested interest. Members may not want to hear that, but the thought prevails today that people only want to hear what they want to hear, and they are not that interested in anything that is contrary to their view.

Mr McCartney:

Mr Morrow would be pretty expert in that.

Mr Morrow:

Some others are very learned in it too. We cannot all be as articulate as Mr McCartney. That is the weakness that some of us have.

Mr Bradley mentioned a figure of some £20 million. I do not know where he got that figure, as he did not substantiate it in any way. He plucked it out of the air. He said that some £20 million would be lost to Northern Ireland as a result of not having on-track betting on Sundays. He will probably inform the House how he arrived at that figure in his winding-up speech.

Mr B Hutchinson said that some 150 jobs were in jeopardy. Again, he did not elaborate and it seems to be a figure pulled out of the sky. No doubt he will elaborate later.

Much has been said today about the impact on tourism. It is all very well for Members to stand up and wildly pluck figures out of the sky. They would be far more convincing if they could show where they get their figures from. For reasons best known to themselves, none of them decided to substantiate any of their figures. Of all those who made the argument for the motion, no matter how articulate they might think they are, not one said that we had got our priorities wrong.

Mr Ervine:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Morrow:

No. Not one of them suggested, either to me personally or on the Floor of this House, that the Department for Social Development's priorities were totally wrong, and that gambling legislation should take a higher priority than housing legislation. They did not have the courage, or they did not seem to want to do it.

Mr McCartney:

Will the Member give way?

Mr Morrow:

I did not interrupt Mr McCartney when he was speaking.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Order.

Mr Morrow:

Many people want to make a contribution now. Why did they not do so while they were speaking?

Mr McCartney:

We only had six minutes.

Mr Morrow:

Michelle Gildernew, of Sinn Féin/IRA no less, stands up and says quite clearly - [Interruption].

Mr J Kelly:

On a point of order. I asked this question before, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it allowable that a Member of this Assembly should address a party other than by the name with which it has been designated in the list of the Assembly's political parties.

Madam Deputy Speaker:

Members have been referring to each other in many different ways. As long those references do not fall into the category of unparliamentary language, they are allowable.

Mr J Kelly:

Further to that point of order. Can we then refer to the DUP as the DUP/LVF or DUP/Orange Volunteers?

Mr Morrow:

I was dealing with a point made by Michelle Gildernew of Sinn Féin/IRA before I was interrupted. She goes on to say that she is concerned about the impact this would have on the economy and the money that would be lost. Can you believe that, coming from Michelle Gildernew of Sinn Fein/IRA? She talks about the loss of revenue when the organisation that her party is inextricably linked with has caused 30 years of devastation, murder and terror. Millions upon millions of pounds have gone down the drain because of the actions of Sinn Féin/IRA - and she insists that she is concerned about the economy. She is not very convincing. She needs to try a little harder.

Mr McCarthy knows a winner when he sees one - that is undoubtedly why he is in the Alliance Party. He is not as good at picking a winner as he thinks he is since he has not convinced anyone, even though we listened to him very carefully.

I want to say to Mr McCarthy that there is no prohibition on betting on a Sunday.

Mr McCarthy:

Not on-track betting.

Mr Morrow:

You can place your bets - and it had been mentioned several times today that numerous facilities are available to you to place your bets.

Mr Ervine, the fountain of all knowledge, tells us that this has nothing to do with betting or not betting on a Sunday. It is something more sinister than that. He is the one individual who can look into everybody's soul and discern exactly what they are thinking. He is actually telling Members that what they are saying is not what they are thinking - they are far more devious than that. By the same logic, I would then have to say that what Mr Ervine says is not really what he is thinking. He must have a devious motive. Therefore, whatever he has said today is not genuine. He has another motive.

He is not interested in Sunday on-track betting. That is not his motive. He has not revealed his motive yet. Therefore, Mr Ervine, as you tar others, you shall be tarred. He will have to be called into question. Everytime he has something to say, we will have to discern that his motives are not right.

Mr B Hutchinson asked if the Minister could justify ignoring the employment and economic benefits for tourism in Northern Ireland as a result of Sunday on-track betting. I do not take lightly any proposal that would benefit industries or increase job opportunities in Northern Ireland. In this case, I take the view that other considerations far outweigh such benefits.

When the Programme for Government was announced, I did not hear any Member stand up in this Assembly and say that there should be a change in gambling legislation. I would have thought that all those who claim to be knowledgeable would have caught on to that point at the time, and not need hindsight. It should have been right at their fingertips to tell this and other Departments that our priorities were all wrong; that housing, street trading and child support legislation should not have priority over betting and gambling legislation. I think that they should have priority over gambling legislation. That is why Mr Nigel Dodds adopted those priorities, and that is why I support those priorities in the House today.

Mr B Hutchinson:

The Minister did not address my amendment at all. He did not talk about gaming machines in bookmakers' shops. I understand what he said about the need to write the legislation. However, my understanding is that two of his advisers are dealing with the Street Trading Bill. That Bill is nearly finished, so why can they not tackle other legislation? They are not involved in other legislation that I know of, and they have never come before our Committee. I assume that they have been working on the Street Trading Bill and have now finished it. They could easily get on with preparing other pieces of legislation. In January 1998, both direct rule Ministers announced that they were ready to bring forward the legislation shortly. Therefore it must not need much preparation.

What the Minister said was reminiscent of those occasions when direct rule Ministers gave the weasel- concept of choice: only one thing can be chosen, so choose between these three - that is what we are being given. This is not about choice, or about which legislation comes first. The legislation needs to be prepared and brought before the House. As I said, these are not life-and-death issues. Everyone wants to see child support matters and the Housing Bill brought forward, but they are not ready yet. The legislation should be prepared and brought forward, because we have been crying out for it for long enough.

The hon Member for North Down, Mr McCartney, made a good case on my behalf. He got right to the core of the political argument. However, I am not sure that the Minister listened to what Mr McCartney said. If he had, he would understand that Mr McCartney's short six-minute speech summed this up very well.

This issue is not just about on-course betting on a Sunday. It is also about jobs in the industry. In GB, 10% of betting shops have lost their business because of the lottery. A 10% loss in Northern Ireland would equate to 150 lost jobs. I draw that figure directly from GB. If the lottery causes bookmakers to lose 10% then 150 jobs will be lost. That is why I brought forward this amendment. I want the Minister to bring forward legislation to allow two gaming machines in every betting shop. That would cover those losses and safeguard jobs. Members talked about family values. If 150 people lose their jobs, what use will family values be to their families? They will be on the dole and have no money. We need to focus on the real issues. It is about bread-and-butter issues and how people can make a living.

Mr McCartney:

Did the hon Member hear anything in the speech of the relevant Minister that concerned the timing of the introduction of on-course betting, and was not a clear refutation of the principle of on-course betting on a Sunday?

Mr B Hutchinson:

I agree with the hon Member for North Down. One of the most disappointing things is that the Minister has not made a case about any of those issues. The case that has been made is for keeping this legislation away from the Assembly. That is very unfortunate. The Minister should have argued the case that it should not be done. Although tourism was mentioned, he admitted at the end of his speech that he was not going to get into that argument.

3.45 pm

It is a valid argument, because it concerns how we can bring money into this society.

I refer back to the consultation that took place over a two-year period before 1998 between the public, proprietors of bookmakers' shops and owners. After consultation the opinion was that things should change. There has been no change to that view.

The review in Great Britain that has been mentioned is not about on-course betting but offshore betting. That is what we will be talking about - multimedia, interactive television, digital and all that brings.

The point was made earlier that the review is not saying that there should be no gambling on a Sunday. You can have horse racing without betting. I do not want to draw analogies, but you would not get the same kick from it. People go to the races to place bets and win, not just to look at horses. I will resist the temptation to draw an analogy with a supermodel.

As to how we move forward, the Minister needs to look at the legislation governing bookmakers' shops.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>