---

The Tote

I do not want to cause even more division among Labour Members. I pay tribute to the horse racing fraternity. The one thing that unites us on both sides of the House is the importance of horse racing to British industry. We can be rightly proud of horse racing in the UK. We now have 60 race courses employing more than 88,000 people, and about 9,000 races a years. I understand that about £10 billion is bet through off-course bookmakers, and a study by Deloitte last year suggested that it contributes well over £3 billion to the economy—a significant sum of money. In a previous debate in this Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) suggested that it sometimes seems that there are as many bodies representing different parts of racing as there are races. I am sure that the Minister will agree that a little consolidation would be a small step in helping us to move forward. Sadly, however, on the matter before us there have been too many headlines on the front pages of our newspapers, not least in the Racing Post, rather than on the back pages. It is grabbing the news for the wrong reasons, which is the background to today's debate. Three outstanding issues hover over the industry. The first, which has been mentioned, is the resolution of the levy—the annual lump sum agreed by the levy board and paid by the bookmakers to horse racing. The second issue is the on-course bookmakers dispute, their legal status and the charge that they pay to a race course, which has been thrown into disarray by drafting errors in the Gambling Act 2005. The third issue is the subject of today's debate—the future of the Tote itself, which was first mooted back in 1999, but still rumbles on. I pay tribute to hon. Members who have commented today. All spoke with passion, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who illustrated the Tote's importance to Cheltenham and the value that it brings not only to that race course, but to others around the country. I pay tribute to the all-party group on racing and bloodstock industries, which provides a wealth of experience. However, I find it bizarre that the Government, who are tasked to solve such problems, have handed over responsibility to a parliamentary group that does not have the clerical support or the finances to answer the questions. I wonder whether the Culture, Media and Sport Committee might have been a better source of scrutiny. The battle scars of this saga are well documented, and they have been mentioned again today. The matter was first raised by Labour in 1999 and again in an election pledge in June 2001 to sell off the Tote. In 2004 there was the debacle with the European Union about a possible conflict with state aid. Another election pledge followed in May 2005, and although we did not actually have an election in 2007—of course we thought that we might—I am sure that if we look in the archives one day, we will see that it would have been in that election manifesto, too. We could place bets on whether it will be in the June 2010 election manifesto. Who knows? Perhaps the Glasgow, East by-election will have an influence on whether that date changes. Sadly, the question about the future of the Tote has rumbled on, as has repeatedly been mentioned today. Bids have been agreed, then scuppered, prices confirmed, then rebuffed, Government announcements made and retractions issued. The industry is calling for stability, but all we get from the Government is uncertainty by the barrel load. The Minister and I first crossed paths about one year ago when we were both appointed to our current posts, and it was in relation to a statutory instrument—the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Totalisator Board) Order 2007, which is quite a mouthful. It amended the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004. The Tote should have been sold off, for which the Act made provision, but because that was not going to happen when the Act came into fruition, an SI had to be introduced to allow the state to continue ownership. That was when we first raised the issue before us. At that time the Minister and I were pretty kind to each other because we were still trying to understand our briefs. We are now a little wiser and are more familiar with the issues. We are not as grey as the former Minister for Sport, although it is clear from the manner in which he gives his speeches that he has not lost any of his energy—clearly, he is still eating three Shredded Wheat in the morning. Long may his energy continue. I pay tribute to the fact that he still wants to participate in the debate, long after he hung up his ministerial boots. The SI was a chance for the Minister to understand the issues and to spell out what he was going to do, now that he had responsibility for the situation. When asked how much time it would take, he replied:"““I am aware of the length of time that has been taken… The latest bid is being considered and I hope that an announcement can be made very shortly on the decision.””" I jumped up and said:"““You were not the Minister then””," which is why it was not his fault. The reply came:"““And it was not my fault. I fully understand the concern that a decision be taken. I hope that that can be done very quickly after proper evaluation of the bid.””—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 July 2007; c. 5.]" A year later, we are none the wiser about what is going on and many questions remain in the air.