| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 275
Betting Tax (Horse Racing)1.59 pm
Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds): I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate and I also thank my hon. Friend the Paymaster General for being here to reply.
The horse racing industry faced a real crisis over national value added tax differentials with the introduction of the single European market in January 1993, but the opportunity to owners to register for VAT threw a vital lifeline to the bloodstock industry. The entire horse racing industry, and my constituents in Newmarket in particular, was most grateful for that crucial concession from the Treasury. Unfortunately, the national lottery's very success in the space of one year has produced fresh difficulties for racing. I remind my hon. Friend that, during the passage of the lottery legislation, a commitment was made that the actual impact of ticket sales would be monitored and reported to Parliament.
Together with the betting industry, racing employs some 100,000 people in Great Britain. The betting industry generates £4.5 billion in turnover and operates 9,300 betting shops. General betting duty produces some £355 million per annum for the Treasury. Although it is true that betting in real terms has declined over the best part of 30 years, clear evidence exists that it is now falling in absolute terms as well. Bluntly put, the long-term viability of racing is now imperilled. Unquestionably, the arrival of the national lottery and of scratchcards in particular has everything to do with it. Betting duty produces an exceptionally good deal for the British taxpayer. Racing receives back just over £50 million from the betting levy and the tote. General betting duty stands at 7.75 per cent. If, however, one takes total turnover and subtracts prize moneys, one comes out with an effective tax rate of 34 per cent.; by comparison, for the national lottery, it is only 24 per cent.
That tax burden is manifestly unjust. It is threatening not only the profitability of the bookmaking industry but the crucial level of prize money available to competing race horses. It is also beginning to affect greyhound racing.
My hon. Friend will be aware of significant changes going on in the pattern of racing and of training. Although Britain can claim to be the historic centre of equine activity, new owners and new breeders are taking a much more global view. Some owners now winter their horses in sunnier climes-- that would appear to be paying off handsomely. Race meetings outside Europe offer much larger prizes. It has become a cliche to talk of global markets and global communication, but it is happening in horse racing now.
The prize money available in Britain is looking even more increasingly paltry by international standards. Taking prize money per horse expressed as a percentage of keep and training costs, in Hong Kong it is 100 per cent., in Japan 92 per cent., in France 49 per cent., in the United States of America 47 per cent. and in Germany 43 per cent. In Britain, it is only 21 per cent. and looks set to diminish even from that low level.
Column 276
So what, if anything, can be done by owners and breeders? Clearly, it is difficult to reduce the day-to-day costs of owning a race horse. If the risk-to-reward ratio is so poor, and so poor by international standards, it is unsurprising that up to 30 per cent. of owners leave racing each year.I alluded to the increasingly international movement of race horses. In a three-year period up to 1994, the number of British-trained horses that successfully competed abroad rose by 75 per cent. For precisely the same reason, foreign-trained entries to British races fell by 30 per cent. The Horserace Betting Levy Board has said that, if the decline in betting activity continues because of the national lottery, it will cause a cut of £6 million from the 1995-96 levy scheme of £55 million. Clearly, the future projections of £57 million for 1996-97 and £59 million for 1997-98 look unattainable.
In other words, the lack of prize money will discourage new owners, and inevitably cause more British-trained horses to compete abroad and fewer foreign-trained competitors to come here. Sooner or later, that will begin to affect the fixture list. All that is disturbing for employment, tax generation and the industry in general, which is increasingly underfunded by any objective standards. Although underfunding has been a feature of racing for many years, it is now tipping into a chronic state of underfunding.
The Bookmakers Committee commissioned a report from the Henley centre which estimated that, this year, the reduction in betting turnover resulting from the introduction of the national lottery is fully 8 per cent. More and more national lottery terminals are being installed and a midweek game is planned. In those circumstances, some 15 per cent. of the 40,000 people employed in the betting office industry could lose their jobs and numerous shops could close, with the inevitable consequences of a decline in taxation income. I should add that, at the time of the national lottery's introduction, a decision was made not to allow betting shops to offer betting on the national lottery--that is despite the experience in the Irish Republic. That at least would have softened the revenue loss blow. Equally, shops were not permitted to sell lottery tickets. Surely, there is now an opportunity to consider liberalisation. That is an unnecessarily oppressive restriction on business. Camelot certainly no longer needs such protection. Such moves could restore turnover to off-course betting activity and would certainly be a deregulatory measure. I urge that contact be made between the Treasury and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage; that could be the basis for at least a partial solution. That deregulatory measure would help the industry to compete on more equal terms. Nobody could have forecast the national lottery's tremendous popular appeal. However, it has a unique competitive edge on other forms of betting. Newspapers have also introduced scratchcards, thereby compounding the problems.
Simply put, a certain number of punters who might have had a flutter on the races are buying lottery tickets or scratchcards instead. I mentioned the redundancies and shop closures that have already begun. There are other clear signs: there has been a doubling of
Column 277
cancellations by betting shops of satellite information services; equally, race sponsorships by bookmakers have been cancelled. To sum up, we are caught in an unvirtuous circle: betting turnover diminishes, betting duty revenues fall, the prize money pool shrinks and, at every level, there is ultimately an employment impact. In the bookmaking industry, shops will close and employees get laid off. In the horse racing industry, the direct impact will be on jockeys, trainers and stable staff.Of course, I welcome the arrival of the national lottery. I applaud its tremendous success and popular appeal. No other industry, however, is being more directly and clearly hit than horse racing. I have the honour of representing in the House the world's racing capital. I cannot be silent about the impact that the position I have described will have on many of my constituents and their livelihoods. Despite an admirable record of self- help in the industry, only the Government can practically resolve this problem.
How can that be achieved? Clearly, the level of betting duty must be reconsidered. I have already said that the effective tax burden on punters compares unfavourably with the national lottery. A cut in betting duty would give a considerable and essential boost to racing.
I need hardly mention that many of the jobs under threat are in rural areas where alternatives are hard to find. A cut in duty would stimulate betting turnover, although, in my view, it is vital that part of that cut finds its way via the levy directly into racing. I hope, therefore, that if my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in his Budget decides to reduce betting duty, he will express his expectation that part of that reduction should go via the levy into racing. My right hon. and learned Friend could, of course, say that the reduction would be contingent on a suitable agreement to enable that to happen.
The racing industry is overwhelmingly financed by owners, at about three times the total levy and tote contribution. Without a reasonable spread of owners, especially new owners, the industry's financial liability will become impossible. We come back to the unvirtuous circle: diminished prize money reduces the desire of individuals to own race horses, fixture lists become smaller, attendances fall and revenues decline further.
Racing has an unassailable case for increased investment. The levy provides capital for upgrading facilities at race courses, not only for spectators but for jockeys and horses. Race courses need to be upgraded continuously to attract increasingly demanding race goers and to provide proper safety arrangements. By international standards, the integrity of British racing is extremely high, and this too requires money.
Other less obvious benefits flow from the proceeds of the levy. Breeders are rewarded for improving their bloodstock and equine veterinary research in Britain needs to be supported. It is probably the finest in Europe and we have been mercifully spared strains of illness that have cropped up elsewhere in the world. Of course, private capital finds its way into all those activities, but, at the minimum, funds from the levy can
Column 278
be used to complement those important endeavours. While prize money continues to remain at the heart of racing's financial problem, there are numerous ancillary activities and projects that provide the backdrop to race meetings themselves.It is, of course, the race horse itself that is the linchpin of the industry. A decline in horses in training ripples out in negative ways which I have sought to describe. In a recession, people hold on to their possessions longer. With racing, the unfavourable prize money to cost ratio manifests itself in a current reluctance in Britain to purchase younger horses. Indeed, the number of horses in training is below both the peak 1989 level and even the level of 10 years ago, despite the undoubted attractiveness of VAT registration for owners and the growth in the number of horses in multiple ownership. Only 5 per cent. of new owners and only 7 per cent. of the more long-standing owners cover their costs.
I do not wish to give the impression that it is only owners who are beneficiaries of prize money. About a quarter of the pool is distributed among stable staff, jockeys and trainers. That, in turn, spills over to a whole spectrum of individuals, such as vets, insurers, farriers, feed merchants, transporters and saddlers. There is an extraordinary misconception about the true and substantial size of employment that racing helps to create.
At 7.75 per cent., general betting duty is punitive in a uniquely harsh way. The Select Committee on Home Affairs produced, in 1991, a yardstick that there should be the possibility for a race horse to cover its costs, of from £1,000 to £1,500 a month, if it won three races. At present, that is pie in the sky, and it has become even more clear since the inception of the national lottery.
An urgent cut in general betting duty of an appropriate size is required to restore the industry, at the minimum, to its pre-lottery state. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General has had specific representations and recommendations on that score. My own clear view is that any cut should be divided between the punter and, through the levy, racing.
Millions of people enjoy racing; it is part of our national heritage. Millions of people participate in the national lottery. The two are now inextricably linked, but to the great disadvantage of the former. Any fair- minded person would conclude that the high level of tax currently imposed on betting turnover is unreasonable. Racing can be stimulated and prize money increased only by a decisive reduction in the cost of betting. I ask my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to give the matter his fullest consideration in the lead-up to the Budget.
2.15 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale): I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) for bringing this important subject to the House today. I declare an interest in that I am a consultant to the National Association of Bookmakers. I want to draw attention to the effect of the national lottery on the betting industry. The Government did, after all, do something for the football pools to help them with the problems that they encountered with the national lottery.
Column 279
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds pointed out, betting duty is at present 7.75 per cent. of turnover. The bookmakers are asking for a reduction of 2 per cent. because they feel that, if they get that reduction, they can pass it on to the punter. That would be very helpful to the people who use betting shops and there would, therefore, be an increase in turnover. I realise that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General can say little today in the lead-up to the Budget, but I hope that he can assure us that such a reduction is being carefully considered.2.16 pm
Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun): I too congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on a first-class speech. He has obviously studied the issue and all the points he raised are ones that anyone who is interested in the betting industry would support.
I want to expand on the case for the greyhound industry which is also viewed by millions of punters and which provides thousands of jobs. I also declare an interest in that I own five greyhounds which run at Shawfield.
Ms Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South): And they never win.
Mr. McKelvey: They win regularly, but I am still poverty-stricken. Owners have a difficult task, as do trainers.
I now turn to the levy and the portion of it that is meant to go to greyhound racing. Unfortunately, it is a voluntary contribution and, although the big, respectable bookmakers have paid their share of the levy, a percentage of the others have not; there is always a shortfall. If any reduction in betting duty, which I support, is to find its way to the greyhound industry, there must be some mechanism by which the voluntary contribution is collected.
I know that the Paymaster General knows a great deal about this subject. Many of us have written to him and we shall go to see him next week. Although he is knowledgeable, we need to work out a technical way around the problem of voluntary contributions. If we do not, the shortfall will wreck the greyhound racing industry. 2.17 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on initiating this debate. I recognise that, this side of the Budget, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General cannot respond to points relating to the Budget. However, I simply make one point in echoing what has already been said.
We are all pretty tired of people saying, on fairly thin evidence, that the national lottery has hit either the money they raise or the business they run. It is clear to me from the evidence, however, that the betting industry, especially off-course betting shops, has been extremely hard hit because of the similarity of its business and the scratchcards. People make a direct choice to buy scratchcards rather than to go into a betting shop. Clearly, the industry needs help.
Column 280
Whatever methodology of the revenue impact the Treasury accepts, I simply ask it to look at the methodology it has used before when it has believed that there would be a gentle decline in revenue or even an increase in revenue by leaving tax at existing levels. I refer of, course, to the withholding tax for American film stars, which was a disaster for the film industry and in terms of revenue.There could be a rapid decline in revenue unless something is done. If such a decline happens, it will hit jobs across the country, particularly in Ladbroke Racing Ltd., which is a major employer in my constituency. I very much hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at that point when considering the Budget later this month.
2.19 pm
The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) introduced this debate with knowledge and eloquence. He has already become an effective advocate of horse racing and its associated industries. He will have been pleased, as I am, by the speeches of other hon. Members and the interest that they have shown in this debate.
I would be the first to acknowledge that horse racing is part of our sporting heritage. It adds excitement and colour to our national life. It is also, as my hon. Friend pointed out, a substantial employer and important as an industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds fairly mentioned that the Government have introduced several helpful measures in recent years, such as the opportunity for owners to register for VAT and thereby recover that tax. There have also been a number of separate deregulatory measures such as those enabling betting shops to open in the evenings and the advent of Sunday racing and betting. There has also been a further relaxation of restrictions on betting shop facilities--resulting, for instance, in the opening up of betting shop frontages. More recently, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has proposed that amusement machines should be allowed in betting shops. He hopes to put a draft order before the Deregulation Committee soon, with a view to the proposal being introduced and coming into effect next year.
Of course, some of those deregulatory measures have been somewhat two-edged in their effect, and I am aware that some bookmakers consider that, for instance, Sunday racing and the opening of betting shops on Sunday have led to higher overheads, which more than cancel out the corresponding increase in revenue and profit. But that must be a commercial decision for them. In general, we seek to remove restrictions unless they are justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked that betting be permitted on the national lottery. It is true that, under the law as it stands, bookmakers cannot accept bets on the lucky numbers. That is a matter not for the Treasury but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I hope that she will consider my hon. Friend's arguments carefully and I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of Ministers in that Department.
Column 281
The question of duty rates was central to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds and was also brought up by other hon. Members. My hon. Friend referred to a study which claims that the very success of the national lottery has caused a marked switch of expenditure away from betting shops. That same point has been made to me in representations from the betting industry and the British Horseracing Board.As the House will understand, with the Budget only a few weeks away, I cannot comment on what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say in his Budget speech. However, I can assure the House, hon. Members who have spoken and those who are listening that my right hon. and learned Friend and I will make decisions in the light of comments made today, and that all representations will be very carefully considered before the announcement on 28 November.
2.24 pm
Sitting suspended.
2.30 pm
On resuming--
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Derek Anthony Enright, esquire, Member for Hemsworth. I am sure that Members on
Column 282
both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.PRIVATE BUSINESS
City of Westminster Bill
[Lords] .
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid; That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table; That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.--[ The Chairman of Ways and Means. ]
Loch Leven and Lochaber Water Power Order Confirmation Bill
Read the Third time, and passed.
Column 281
Beaufort Dyke
3.30 pm
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): I thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to request a debate under Standing Order No. 20. You will recall that three years ago, on the previous occasion that I asked for such a debate, in relation to Rosyth, you were kind enough not only to grant it, but to grant it on that very day, so I have my fingers crossed that I may get the double.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, "the danger to the public and the work force arising from the British Gas operations at Beaufort dyke off the coast of south-west Scotland."
The matter is specific, as, for the past three weeks, phosphorus incendiaries have been washed up on the shores of Ayrshire, Arran and Argyll. In spite of protests by local Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), and the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), and in spite of a meeting with the Secretary of State for Defence and a meeting with Cedric Brown of British Gas, the dangerous pipe-laying work is continuing. For a few days, the Health and Safety Executive imposed a prohibition order on the work because of the concern expressed by the work force. The sub-contractors
Column 304
and the local people also expressed that concern. However, for some reasons, which have never been explained to anyone, the order was lifted by the Health and Safety Executive, and the work, which is already behind schedule, was allowed to recommence.Today, we have the overriding reason for an urgent debate. The Scottish Daily Mail , in a three-page exclusive report, reveals that depth charges are now lying inches away from the gas pipeline, and that there are other explosives in the vicinity, so it would be quite irresponsible for British Gas to continue. The Scottish Office announced last week that there is to be a marine survey later this month. British Gas must suspend its operations until the results of the survey are known and until action is taken to make the munitions safe.
Ministers whom my colleagues and I have approached keep passing the buck from one to the other. It is only today that I realise that it is not those in the Department of Trade and Industry or the Ministry of Defence, but the Department of the Environment which is responsible for the Health and Safety Executive. Ministers in that Department should be brought to book before the House.
Local Members of Parliament have not had an answer. The only way in which we shall get answers from Ministers is to have an emergency debate. I request urgently, on behalf of my colleagues, that you grant it, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. I have to give my decision to the House without stating my reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.
Column 305
Points of Order3.34 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It follows a similar point of order which was raised by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 24 October, on which you ruled, and arises from the actions of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).
In the summer, the hon. Member wrote 18th birthday congratulations, in the form of a letter on his constituency notepaper, and claimed to be acting in a ministerial capacity. Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, one of the letters went to a constituency activist of mine, who brought it to my attention and said that it had spoiled her 18th birthday. She would be very happy to receive a birthday card from me, but was not happy to receive a lot of Conservative propaganda from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-- to whom I gave notice at midday by telephone and by note of my intention to raise the issue today.
I was adding to the problems since I wrote to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North protesting about the matter when it was drawn to my attention three weeks ago. So far, I have not received a reply giving some explanation of why he was writing to my constituents. Indeed, when I spoke to him last night and asked him when I would get a reply, he told me that he did not intend to reply, which is why I have no option but to resort to bringing the matter to the attention of the House.
Not only is there the issue of writing to other hon. Members' constituents- -the point made by the hon. Member for Ayr, on which you ruled last week Madam Speaker--there is a rule of the House, as I understand it, that birthday greetings from hon. Members must be no more than greetings, and must not include propaganda about Conservative achievements in Wales, and so on.
Thirdly, there is the fact that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North has not answered my letter, and, fourthly, he has claimed specifically that he was writing in his ministerial capacity, which he has no right to do in the form of birthday greetings to 18-year-olds in Cardiff, West.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's principal concern is that one of his constituents has been approached by another Member. I can confirm his understanding that it is a clear convention that, unless otherwise agreed between the hon. Members concerned, the interests of members of the electorate can be represented only by their constituency Member--in this case, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). But as he and the House know, I, as Speaker, have no means of enforcing those conventions; I have to leave it to the good sense of Members to work out their problems between them.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you in particular are keen to defend both the reputations of this House and Members of it. I have a difficulty with The Independent . Several days ago, the Labour Research magazine, which is linked to the Labour party, did its usual accurate level of research in supposedly revealing a secret document about Members who belong to the freemason organisation. I might add that that secret document is available in most public
Column 306
libraries, and the magazine demonstrated only that it could not read it correctly, since it misnamed me as a senior official of the freemason organisation.The article attempted to smear colleagues who are members of the organisation, which does a great deal of good charitable work. It presented the matter as something sleazy, which Nolan should be looking into.
The particular point that I raise is that, as we all know in this place, a lie is halfway round the world before truth has got its coat on. The item has been retracted by the newspaper in a piece which nobody could see if they did not have their glasses on--
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow debates, or these lengthy statements by Members. I do not think that the House quite understands what a point of order is about. A point of order has to be something with which I, as Speaker, can deal. Now come to the point of order.
Mr. Bruce: The point for you, Madam Speaker, is whether, when Lobby correspondents refuse to put the record right as quickly as possible in a sensible way, you can remove the passes from those people and--
Madam Speaker: Order. An individual complaint that the hon. Gentleman has against the Lobby is not a matter for me as Speaker to deal with. He must deal with the Lobby himself, as I have done for the past 23 years.
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North): On another point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time, I was astonished to hear Captain Richard Killick, who was formerly one of the Royal Navy's senior experts on nuclear safety, being defamed by the Minister for Industry and Energy. Will you confirm, Madam Speaker, that a constituent has an absolute right to raise matters of concern, both local and national, with his or her constituency Member of Parliament? The idea that a constituent should be prevented from doing that, and instead should have to go to the Government- -the sponsor of the legislation about which he is complaining and wishes to express concern--is absurd, and extremely dangerous.
Madam Speaker: Any individual in this country has an absolute right and liberty to go to his or her own Member of Parliament to seek redress. That is the way in which we all deal with our constituents; there is a perfect right of access.
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. Just a moment. I can see hon. Members standing.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): I agree with you, Madam Speaker, that constituents have an absolute right to come to their constituency Member to raise matters on their own behalf. Could you therefore do something about the fact that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who has just made that very point, came to my constituency without advising me in advance, in order to take a petition from constituents on a matter that they had not had the courtesy to raise with me in the first place? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that we could probably take up many afternoons with such matters.
Column 307
I have given many rulings on the subject, and I expect Members of the House to behave as adults. [Interruption.] Order. I have given my rulings, and explained to the House about the convention. I expect Members to observe that convention, and to arrange matters between themselves.Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): Will you let us know, Madam Speaker, whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has yet submitted any evidence in support of the allegations that he made yesterday?
Madam Speaker: I have not yet received any information from the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that today Yorkshire Water is applying for a drought order for permission to introduce 24-hour rota cut-offs in Halifax and Huddersfield. If that happens, industry in my constituency could be desperately affected. Even worse, schools could close, and the elderly and sick in nursing homes could be put gravely at risk.
My point of order for you is to ask whether the Government have said that a Minister will make a statement on what, thanks to the mismanagement of the privatised utility, Yorkshire Water, is a grave crisis for my constituents and for people in Huddersfield.
Madam Speaker: No, I have not been told that a Minister seeks to make a statement today. Had that been the case, we should all have known about it, because it would have been on the Annunciator.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): Have you, Madam Speaker, any information about a Government statement on the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa, who has been sentenced to death on trumped-up charges by a military tribunal under the discredited military regime in Nigeria? Given the circumstances, severing diplomatic relations and severe economic sanctions are the least that people will expect from the British Government.
Column 308
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Lady to the point of order and exchange that took place on the matter yesterday. No, the Government have not told me that they seek to make a statement.Mr. Brian H. Donohoe (Cunninghame, South): Although obviously I accept your ruling, Madam Speaker, on the application for an emergency debate under Standing Order No. 20 made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I wonder what other avenues are open to us as Members of Parliament to pursue the matter.
| Next Section
| Home Page |