| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paice : A few minutes ago, the Minister said that the argument for amendment No. 5 had not been made,
but now he is making it himself. He is making precisely the point that we are making—namely, that the Tote should be sold to an organisation whose best interests are synonymous with those of racing. We do not doubt his intention, but if he is as determined as he says he is, all we ask is that that be included in the Bill.
Mr. Caborn: We cannot include every hypothetical case in the Bill. To a large extent, that is what we were asked to do in Committee. The case for including this provision in the Bill has not been made, in view of the assurances that have been given and the actions that have been taken. The shadow trust has been set up and there have been negotiations and discussions with the industry. People in the real world—in the money markets and betting industry—believe in our intention to sell to a racing trust; only Conservative Members do not. The Tote and the industry asked for this action to be taken, and it has been under discussion for some considerable time.
Mr. Don Foster: The Minister says that he will not answer allegedly hypothetical questions, but he did so when he said:
- "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."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 2004; c. 26.]
Mr. Caborn: The industry has been given all the advantages of protection for seven years to ensure that it can go into the marketplace in an orderly way. We set up the shadow racing trust and worked with the industry to achieve that objective. We cannot accept the amendment, because the case for it has not been made.
Mr. Salmond: Let us say that the right hon. Gentleman's excellent work as Minister for Sport is rewarded by a well-merited promotion to the higher echelons of Government, and that one of the young bloods from the Labour Back Benches who is daft enough to want to privatise the BBC is put in his place. What would happen to his guarantee, which I entirely believe he thinks is right and proper, if it was not in the Bill?
Mr. Caborn: I took over this portfolio from previous Ministers, not only in my Department, but in the Home Office, and the commitment has been consistent throughout. It was a manifesto commitment, and we adhere to those. We set up the shadow trust, and our discussions with the industry clearly show that we have the same intentions. With that goodwill on both sides, we shall achieve our objective.
It is playing with semantics to try to put such a provision on the face of the Bill and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
4.30 pm
Mr. Paice: Given last week's events, I am slightly concerned when the Minister prays in aid his manifesto. He is renowned for his robust approach to life, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said from a sedentary position behind me, to lead with the chin in such a way is brave if not foolhardy. The Minister has told the House what actions that the Government have taken to enable the Tote to be sold to a shadow racing trust—to all of which I say "Hear, hear." The Government have given their word over and again that they want to sell to a racing trust. They have helped to set up a racing trust, they have entered into negotiations with the trust and they have repeated their intentions time and again. Like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I accept the Minister's word as I accepted his predecessor's word.
However, the Minister appears to have a blind spot. If all that I have said is the case, and if hon. Members of all parties take it as read, why cannot he accept the amendment? It does not go as far as to say that the Tote will be sold to the shadow racing trust; the Minister effectively says that it will be sold to a racing trust. If it is, I shall be delighted and Conservative Members will rejoice, but the Minister said on Second Reading and in Committee that we should not fetter the Government or tie their hands in negotiations. As I said earlier, the Minister said in Committee:
- "No one can give us a complete guarantee that racing will be in a position to buy it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 2004; c. 25.]
The Minister appears to have a blind spot about the amendment. Clearly, he will not change his position and we must therefore move to other amendments on which we may make progress. Perhaps I am over-optimistic, but I live in hope. However, I emphasise that the issue causes grave concern. I hope that when the Bill gets to another place, the Minister's colleague there will be able to report that negotiations have reached the stage when he can confirm that the sale is going ahead. If not, and if when the measure is debated in another place the position remains vague and negotiations have not progressed to the point of determination, my noble Friends will try to get the assurances that we have sought tonight.
The race has only two possible outcomes and we will lose, at least on the figures if not on the argument. I cannot understand the Minister's refusal to put in the Bill the outcome that he is determined to persuade hon. Members will be achieved. However, he continues to refuse and, in the light of that refusal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8
Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
'(1A) The exclusive licence shall, unless revoked under subsection (6), have effect for the period of seven years beginning with the date of issue.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 7, in page 5, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert
'any terms or conditions of the licence other than its duration.'
Amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 16 , leave out from 'Crown' to the end of line 17 and insert—
'(c) shall require the Gaming Board prior to the expiry of the exclusive licence to offer for open competition a further exclusive licence for a fixed period provided that such a further exclusive licence shall only be granted to a body whose purpose in holding such a licence is to generate income for the support or improvement of horseracing, and
(d) shall appoint prior to the expiry of the exclusive licence an independent inquiry to advise him whether a further exclusive licence should be issued and whether such a further licence, if issued, should be issued to the successor company or another body.'.
Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 2, leave out paragraph (a).
Mr. Caborn: The Government ask for amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 7 not to be pressed.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 spell out the length of the exclusive licence and remove its duration as one of the terms and conditions that the Secretary of State may specify when requiring the Gaming Board to issue a licence. We have repeatedly made it clear that any period of exclusivity would be for seven years, but I thought it best to leave the Secretary of State with discretion to issue a different length of licence if, for some reason, circumstances at the time of sale dictated it. It seems that our reassurances were not enough for some Opposition Members, and I agreed in Committee to consider amendments specifying the length of licence. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are intended to provide greater certainty for all concerned. Given that amendment No. 7 covers broadly the same ground as my amendments, I shall ask the Opposition not to press it.
We cannot accept amendments Nos. 1 and 2. They introduce the possibility of exclusive licence renewability, although we have made it clear that the exclusive licence will be issued once and once only. The exclusive licence is a transitional measure to safeguard the existence of a strong pool betting market, and to allow the racing trust-owned successor an opportunity to establish itself in a fully commercial environment.
If Members fear that racing will somehow suffer a loss of income when the exclusive licence period ends, I remind them that as long as it is owned by the trust, the successor company will generate an income for racing on the whole of its business, not just pool betting. The
split between the pool and fixed-odds betting is roughly 20:80. That business will have been built up on the back of the security provided by the seven-year exclusive licence. I firmly believe that the successor company will have the opportunity within that time to do all that is necessary to secure an income stream for racing for years to come. There is no need to introduce the prospect of renewability when the Government will not take up that option.Amendment No. 13 will prevent the Secretary of State from revoking the exclusive licence after the successor company ceases to be owned by the Crown. Originally, we thought it wise to allow the Secretary of State a 14-day period in which to revoke the licence as a precautionary measure. It was always possible that something might come to light immediately after issue that would cause the Secretary of State to reconsider whether the licence should have been issued in the first place. However, given that the Gaming Board will retain the power of revocation, and in the light of amendments put forward in Committee that we agreed to consider, the Government propose amendment No. 13 to remove the Secretary of State's discretion in that respect.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |