| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a media frenzy outside about the subject—shifting sands regarding WMDs and so on and so forth. Bearing in mind the importance of the whole issue to the future of the Prime Minister, should not a statement be made in this House, and not elsewhere?
Mr. Speaker: The media always seem to be in a frenzy.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of rulings that you have given on previous occasions about matters of great importance coming to this House first, and given that representatives on both sides of the House have been clamouring for an inquiry of the type that might be about to be announced, could you use your good offices to ensure that there will not be a statement by the Prime Minister to the Liaison Committee and that there categorically will be a statement in this House?
Mr. Speaker: As I say, the matter is not before me at the moment.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a simple seeker after truth, may I ask whether you were not a little quick on the draw, Mr. Speaker, in saying that my question should not be answered, because a lot of people are asking it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Father of the House has been here for a long time. The question did not relate to the statement, which is why I was rather quick.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab/Co-op): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the spurious nature of the interventions so far, will you consider running a master class on points of order?
Mr. Speaker: One day, perhaps, I will get a proper point of order.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Even from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forth: On a genuine point of order, a genuine one, Mr. Speaker. Could you confirm to the House that our Standing Orders now allow for a thing called an urgent question to be submitted to you on matters that are deemed by you to be both important and urgent? Without wanting to speculate on anything that might happen in the future, could you not at least contemplate that the sort of subject that has been raised this afternoon might be just that thing?
Mr. Speaker: The statement that we heard from the right hon. Lady was made because an urgent question was granted. I look at requests for urgent questions every day.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you perhaps ensure that whatever in future appears on the monitor to inform Members of business is correct in its nature? When we had the urgent question, the title on the monitor was "Chairmanship of the BBC". Many of us would therefore have thought that what the Father of House said was a matter that related to the chairmanship of the BBC.
Mr. Speaker: No matter what is on the monitor, the best thing is always for hon. Gentlemen and Ladies to come in and hear the statement. The supplementaries can then be related to the statement.
Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): Further to the point of order raised by the Father of the House, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a matter relating to the process of selecting the chairman of the BBC that all information necessary for a prospective chairman to make a decision on what the job entails should be made public and open? A desire to understand the nature of the relationship between—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not defy the Speaker. I stopped proceedings on the statement five minutes ago—we are finished with it.
Orders of the DayHorserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
3.59 pm
The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn) : I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 16, at end insert—
'(3) Nothing in this Part constitutes arrangements for the purposes of—
(a) section 42(2) of the Finance Act 1930 (c. 28) (relief from stamp duty),
(b) section 27(3) of the Finance Act 1967 (c. 54) (stamp duty), or
(c) paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 to the Finance Act 2003 (c. 14) (relief from stamp duty land tax).'.
This technical amendment would put it beyond doubt that the powers in part 1 do not amount to arrangements falling within section 42(2) of the Finance Act 1930 or section 27(3) of the Finance Act 1967, which relate to stamp duty, or within paragraph (2) of schedule 7 to the Finance Act 2003, which relates to stamp duty and land tax, commonly known as SDLT—no doubt that is now clear to the House.
If the powers in part 1 were to amount to such arrangements, their existence would mean that the group relief from stamp duty on a transfer of shares, or SDLT on a transfer of an interest in land, was not available for transfers between members of the Tote group after the Bill becomes law but before the Tote is vested in a successor company. The amendment ensures that such a claim to relief does not fall on those grounds. Any subsequent transfer outside the Tote group will be subject to stamp duty or SDLT under the normal rules.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 22, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall not nominate any person unless satisfied that the person nominated will use all surpluses generated by the company for the support or improvement of horseracing.'.
The amendment is a response to debates on Second Reading and in Committee in which we discussed at some length, although not at exceeding length, to whom the Tote should be sold. Opposition Members were worried by the Minister's assertion, repeatedly made in Committee—I have the text in front of me—that the House was deciding to sell the Tote full stop and that any constraints on whom it should be sold to would frustrate the will of the House.
The amendment would slightly constrain the Government in whom they sell the Tote to—or, to be more precise, in whom they sell shares in the successor body to—by ensuring that the Secretary of State can nominate someone for transfer of shares in the successor company only if she is satisfied that the person who is nominated will use the surpluses for the support or improvement of horse racing.
The House is familiar with the fact that the Tote's role is to operate an exclusive pool betting system and that all the profits from that, together with substantial sponsorship, go back into horse racing. Various figures have been quoted. For instance, the Tote put roughly £14 million into horse racing in the last financial year. That is a significant sum. It is widely accepted by everyone in the horse racing industry and, I think, by the Minister that we should do our level best to ensure that that flow of resources from the Tote into racing continues.
The Minister made it clear, as did his predecessors and various Secretaries of State, that it is the Government's desire to sell the Tote to a racing trust. Indeed, the House knows that a shadow racing trust already exists and is waiting to negotiate the details with the Government. However, as the Minister said in Committee:
- "No one can give us a complete guarantee that racing will be in a position to buy it."
- "The answer is yes, we would sell into something. If we cannot sell into a racing trust, and the House of Commons has said that it wants to sell the Tote, we will be in some difficulties. We would have a piece of legislation instructing us to sell the Tote, and we would therefore have to consider options. That is not our intention."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 2004; c. 25-26.]
The House is not instructing the Minister; rather, it is enabling the Minister or the Government—this is an enabling piece of legislation—to sell the Tote, or at least to transfer the shares in the successor company. I think that the Minister is wrong to suggest, as he did in Committee, that somehow we are instructing the Government to sell and then, by moving amendments, such as amendment No. 5, putting an obstacle in the way.
I have made it clear that I want to see the Tote sold into the hands of the racing trust. Failing that, I want to see it sold into the hands of individuals or a group of people who will ensure that the flow of money into racing continues. That is the only constraint that I wish to put on the Government, and it is only a minor constraint.
The Minister clearly believes that he should have complete freedom, despite the undertakings that he has given to sell to a racing trust. I do not believe that the House wants to give carte blanche to the Minister to sell to anybody regardless. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is making a serious error of judgment if he thinks that that is the view of the House. The Bill does not instruct the Minister to sell; it simply enables him to carry out the policy that he has enunciated on several occasions.
I move the amendment in the hope that the Minister will respond seriously to our points of concern. We all hope that the sale to the racing trust will go through. That is the desire of Members on both sides of the House, including the Minister. However, we must consider what happens if, for some reason, the sale falls through. I seek to introduce a small constraint, which is that the Secretary of State should allow the transfer of shares, or nominate someone for that transfer, if she or he is persuaded that that person has the interests of racing at heart, and that that is where any surpluses that are generated will go.
The Minister may find some technical grounds to reject the amendment. That is commonplace in the House. However, I want him to address the principal issue. Whatever happens to the amendment, the fundamental issue that people in the racing industry want to know is whether he is determined to sell the Tote come what may, regardless of whether the shadow racing trust can purchase it and regardless of whether anyone with an interest in racing can or wishes to purchase it. Is the right hon. Gentleman determined to sell it regardless of those concerns? Is he prepared to sell to anyone, including, possibly, another bookmaker? That is the question that needs to be answered.
I hope that the Minister will say no. I hope that he will make it clear that it is the Government's intention to sell to the racing trust if that is possible, and that if that falls through, he will ensure that the Tote is sold in a way that is equally beneficial to racing. I am looking for that answer from the Minister.
This is an important repetition of debate in Committee. It goes to the heart of future ownership of the Tote and its contribution to racing.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |