| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): People who studied our deliberations on Second Reading and in Committee will know that they were distinguished by broad support for the Bill among Members on both sides of the House. It is an enabling measure that, as several hon. Members said on Second Reading, has a number of gaps. The amendment seeks to address a gap that was discussed at considerable length in Committee. The whole House has made it clear that it is in favour of the sale of the Tote if it would benefit both the taxpayer and racing. Committee members agreed that profits should be split 50:50, but there was a clear understanding in Committee and on Second Reading that the purchasers of the Tote were expected to put all the profits from the operation of the Tote back for the benefit of racing. The Minister has implied that he is in favour of such an arrangement.
It is only fair, however, to point out a problem that arose in Committee. Some hon. Members argued that the Government should be required to sell the Tote only
to the racing trust. Others, including me, thought that that would tie the Government's hands, and we fully believed that, if the racing trust could not purchase the Tote, there should be an opportunity for negotiation with other bodies. The difficulty is clear in our deliberations on 20 January, especially at column 26, when as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, we failed to get a clear, categorical answer from the Minister to a simple question. I asked whether the Minister would tell the Committee
- "whether he believes that there are any circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to sanction a sale of the Tote to a body that does not intend to put the entirety of the profits received from the Tote into racing".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 2004; c. 26.]
The Bill is an enabling measure and does not require the Secretary of State to sell the Tote. It is possible that the interests of both racing and the taxpayer would be best served if there were no sale. The only circumstances in which I can envisage that happening are if the sale were to be made to an organisation that would not invest the profits in racing. I suspect that the Minister agrees with everything that I have just said. The Bill's progress through the House would be speeded up if he said that he does, and then we would all be happy.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I shall approach amendment No. 5 from a slightly different angle.
I did not serve on the Standing Committee, but I have read its proceedings. Under normal circumstances, I could accept the defence that the Minister made in Committee in response to requests for an assurance to be included in the Bill. However, these are not normal circumstances for the racing industry. There is a great pall of uncertainty because of the intervention of the Office of Fair Trading and speculation about the eventual consequences. Since Second Reading, the broadcasting of racing has been up in the air. Contracts that were supposed to be in place are being renegotiated as we speak. In that fevered atmosphere, if the Minister cannot find a way to include such an assurance in the Bill, could he not act as a beacon of stability and try to provide assurances about one aspect of the future of the racing industry? This applies to other amendments as well.
I notice that we have the Minister somewhat outnumbered. We will push our case not on that basis, but on the logic of the argument. I am sure that neither the Conservative party nor the Liberals would be guilty of trying to trap the Minister into doing something to which his civil servants would be opposed. Instead, we appeal to his good will. All sectors of the racing industry have looked to him in recent times to chart a way out of the instability, which could be extremely damaging. The aspect under discussion is under the Minister's control, and no one doubts his good will. Can he not find a way to quell the uncertainty and provide a guiding light as we debate this and other amendments?
4.15 pm
Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): Not surprisingly, I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). It was debated at reasonable length and with good humour in Committee, so I shall not gallop over that ground again. For most of the debate on the Bill, the Minister has been saying, hand on his heart, "Trust me, I'm a politician." He made a host of generous and warm remarks, which fell just a tad short of commitment. My hon. Friend's amendment asks for a little commitment.
Everyone wants the sale to the racing trust to go through, but the Minister agreed that if it did not, a racing trust could substitute. I understand that the Government do not want their hands tied if all the options fall through—let us hope that they do not fall through, as that would be disastrous for racing. As my hon. Friend said, racing desperately needs the support of the Tote's money. Its finances have improved dramatically over the past couple of years, thanks to the actions of several dedicated and hard-working individuals, but as we heard, various negotiations are taking place.
One or two people may think that the comments and views of the Office of Fair Trading on the matter have not helped the financing of racing, so we are looking for an assurance that the money from the Tote will be available for racing. It is a valuable industry. I shall not go through all the statistics mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee. I cannot see the Minister accepting the amendment at this point, but I hope he can give some encouragement that when the Bill goes to the other place, there will be a little more direction and a little more commitment. The Bill lacks a few datum points that would provide certainty for the negotiations and the way forward. I shall return to that in the context of other amendments.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). The purpose of the Bill is not to nationalise the Tote, but to privatise it or change its status. It is rather odd that that objective is not in the Bill. The Bill deals with the nationalisation of the Tote, which is not the objective.
As we know, the Tote was set up in the 1920s for the purpose of racing. That is why a racing trust, as opposed to any other form of trust, has been set up. Of course, the Tote takes bets on all manner of sports, but a racing trust has been set up because the Tote was set up for the benefit of racing. The Tote is not just any old bookmaker. Other bookies also put money into racing, but the Tote's profits go into racing, as well as the sponsorship that it puts in. It is therefore a national institution. It has run the exclusive pool betting licence for the benefit of racing and for the benefit of the punters. One pool, as opposed to several pools, means that if the punter is fortunate enough to win, they get a bigger prize than if there were many different pools.
A sale to any body other than one set up purely to benefit racing would be wrong and would miss the point of the Bill. In a brief speech, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) described racing's uncertain finances. For example, there is the change in the
Attheraces deal, we have uncertainty with regard to the future of the levy board, and the OFT creates great uncertainty everywhere it treads. The last thing that racing needs at the moment is the possibility, albeit small and albeit inadvertent, of any further loss of income if the Tote sale does not go to the racing trust, as we all intend and as I am sure the Government intend.Given all that, I am left wondering why the amendment is not already in the Bill, and why it is unacceptable to the Government. I cannot foresee circumstances, unless they are brought about by the heavy hand of the Treasury, whereby the amendment should not be included in the Bill. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us why it cannot be agreed to and under what circumstances he could envisage selling the Tote to a body other than an organisation set up exclusively for the benefit of racing.
Mr. Caborn: Amendment No. 5 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that any purchaser of the Tote would use operating surpluses in the interests of racing, in effect guaranteeing the sale to a racing trust or something like it.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) tabled a similar amendment in Committee, as he said, and I repeat yet again that the Government intend to sell to a racing trust. That has always been our intention and it has been restated repeatedly, although it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
Let us consider the circumstances in which we would not sell to a racing trust. We have heard many arguments about whether the Treasury, and the OFT in its recommendation, which is a matter of public record, are saying that there should be no exclusive licence and the Tote should be sold in the private marketplace. We took a view that that would be wrong. Let us put the Tote into perspective. About 20 per cent. of the Tote's business is the pool, and 80 per cent. is in fixed odds, which, to a large extent, is out there in the marketplace.
I do not believe that the argument for amendment No. 5 has been made. The Government do not believe that we need such a provision in the Bill. We have always said that we want to sell the Tote to a racing trust. We have protected it for seven years and we have set up a shadow racing trust, with which we have had detailed negotiations and which is now in detailed negotiations with the Treasury.
While the Bill was in Committee, I met representatives of the industry for other reasons, but I took up with them the point raised in Committee about the sale of the Tote to an outside body. Could anyone imagine that the industry, given the opportunity, with a seven-year protection and with all the safeguards that we have provided on the price, including the independent evaluation, would not be sold to a racing trust and that the profits would not go back into the industry?
If the argument was that the Tote should be sold in the marketplace in order to obtain a better price, that could well take place. But all the actions that the Government have taken to date show that that is not the case and will not be the case. I can assure the House that the Government want to ensure that it goes to a racing trust.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |