Clause 1 - Dissolution of the tote
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
9:45 am
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I fully recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The right term is probably ''a maximum of 50 per cent.'' The figure that has been used throughout the debates during the past 18 months has been 50 per cent., although we have yet to put it into any context or add substance to it, whether it be a maximum of 50 per cent. or 50 per cent.
My hon. Friend said that perhaps the taxpayer should pay the Tote. I believe that that was the way he put it. That might be stretching the point ever so slightly, but the important point is that the taxpayer has never put any money into the Tote itself or even stood by its borrowings. Therefore, there is an intellectual argument that the taxpayer has no right to benefit from the sale of the Tote, other than from the licence fee, which I will come to later, because the taxpayer has never had any financial responsibility for the Tote throughout its existence. Indeed, as I said on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) stated clearly in a written answer, when he was the Minister responsible for such matters, that the Tote's assets basically belong to the Tote board, and that the Tote board belongs to no one. That makes it clear that the taxpayer is not viewed as owning it.
In 1999. the British Horseracing Board obtained expert legal advice from Sydney Ketteridge and Margaret Gray, who argued that it was fallacious for the Government to have a share of the money for the Tote. They went on to say that
''the monopoly was vested in a statutory Board in the public interest. The proper control of betting and racing was recognised as a benefit to the nation. The Tote itself derives no benefit from the monopoly rights and cannot sell these rights to a third party for commercial value.''
It is doubtful whether the Government can support their claim to a share in the value of the Tote.
I am sufficiently realistic to understand that the Government will probably insist on a small pound of flesh for the Tote, but there is a strong intellectual argument that they should not receive any money other than the licence fee. What concerns me—this a point that I shall repeat on several occasions during our proceedings—is that none of us can foresee the future. The Minister and the Secretary of State have been completely open and genuine in their expressed intentions about the various aspects of the disposal of the Tote—I do not detract from them at all—and we all know that. Although it is commonplace in Committee to say that the Minister may not be around in few months and that we will have somebody else, that is a reality. We do not know what the future holds.
As I said on Second Reading, it is perfectly conceivable that the situation may have changed by the time the Bill has completed its passage, particularly if, in light of the Office of Fair Trading investigations, decisions are taken to delay some of the actions because the Bill is all-enabling. Therefore, there is an argument for saying that we need a commitment about the mechanism by which the Tote will be valued and a sale price agreed. Of course there are those, the bookmakers in particular, who contend that the value of the Tote is considerably in excess of the sums that have been talked about as a sale price—anything from £50 million to £150 million has been quoted.