---

The Tote

That is where one can hit the European Union. The European Union has no responsibility at all for gambling. It tried to bring gambling under its influence during recent discussions on the services directive, but had to take it out for all sorts of reasons. I will not describe them now, because they are not particularly germane to the argument, other than to say that gambling is not part of the European Union's remit and that it does not have the power to bring gambling under its remit. Gambling, however, is brought under that remit in so far as it relates to competition. France has not tried to alter its Tote, so the reality is that the status quo prevails. If we want to keep the Tote nationalised and to be able to do what we want with it, the European Community will do nothing about that. It is only when we start changing the Tote that the EU will have a say on how it is changed. Otherwise, the status quo can and will prevail, and the Tote will continue to run as it does now. It is a nationalised organisation, fully funded by the state. The Tote is in a peculiar situation, but for the sake of the discussion I will respond on the issue of state aid, although I think it is a bogus argument. There would be a seven-year transitional period, and that would take the Tote into the market place once it was fit for purpose. In addition, the long-term profits of part of the Tote fund sport, which should be able to be funded and not brought under competition rules anyway. As part of the Nice protocol in 2000, the Heads of Government declared that sport should be defined separately from other commercial operations. What am I proposing this morning? I am saying that the status quo is not an option for the Tote, because it is haemorrhaging and we are losing good staff. Although it is important to get good returns for the taxpayer, it is highly debatable whether the Tote is actually an asset of the taxpayer. No one owned the Tote and it became a taxpayer concern only once we nationalised it. We paid nothing for it, so I do not know how the Treasury can sometimes argue that it belongs to the taxpayer. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tewkesbury is laughing. I was the one who brought the Tote into public ownership, but we now need to look at how we can develop it in the interests of racing, the UK and the punter. As I have said, under my proposals, the Treasury would get its deal, and I have answered the issue on state aid. Racing would get a good income stream, both in the short and medium term, and we could continue to build jobs. I believe that, if we want to, we can resolve the issue of the levy and bring it into the new Tote trust. That would give clear funding streams for sport on the one hand, with good governance by the BHA on the other. I think that the sport would be fit for purpose. Considering that the UK horse racing sport and industry is revered around the world, there would be a major step forward, and I hope that the proposal will be taken seriously and that we can collectively put it together and deliver for sport.