Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in

clause 5, page 3, line 19, at end insert—

'(1A) No nomination under subsection (1)(b) shall be made of any person other than one who receives the securities on behalf of a Trust Fund whose purposes are in the interests of horseracing.'.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

As you will probably have realised, Mr. Sayeed, this is one of the most important groups of amendments that we have tabled to part 1, because it would ensure that the future ownership of the Tote was in the best interests of racing. The amendments do not go so far as specifically to require the Tote to be sold to the racing trust or the shadow trust, as currently exists, not because we do not want it to be, but because we have taken at face value the Minister's comments on Second Reading that the new owners must be able to deal with any eventualities that may arise. I am sure that in principle the Minister will be sympathetic to what we seek to achieve. Indeed, from his remarks on Second Reading, I know that he is.

As I said on Second Reading, the Tote is widely seen by the whole racing industry as part of racing. Even the punters view it as such. They go to the race track, where they see its familiar livery. They know it is there and they expect it to be there. I believe that the vast majority of punters, as well as everybody else involved with racing, believe and expect that the profits, dividends—we can call them what we like—should go back into racing. Any idea that the Tote would be sold to some person or organisation that would not plough the proceeds back into racing would be met with absolute horror and objection right across the world of racing.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are not necessarily complementary. They are alternative ways of trying to get into the Bill some mechanism to ensure that the objective that I have just described is met. Amendment No. 2 states that

''unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person nominated will ensure that any dividend from those securities is utilised by the company in the interests of horseracing'',

he would not be able to sell the shares to a new owner. Amendment No. 3 refers to

''any person other than one who receives the securities on behalf of a Trust Fund whose purposes are in the interests of horseracing.''

The amendments provide different ways of addressing the situation.

The Tote is of immense value to the racing industry in cash terms as well as the emotional terms that I have just described. The latest half-year interim report shows profits of £9.2 million and in the past year it has put £10.7 million into racing, excluding the levy of more than £14 million. That is a considerable cash input to the racing industry, and it is fair to say that racing would be in desperate straits without it.

We should be encouraged by the fact that the racing industry is perhaps stronger than ever. In 2003, there were more fixtures, more people attending racing and higher average attendances than ever before. The industry is in a growth phase, but it needs resources ploughed back from the Tote and, as we shall discuss later, from the levy board or its successor systems. That money must go into racing.

The Government have expressed on numerous occasions, and the Minister has already repeated in Committee, a desire to transfer the Tote to a racing trust. I shall not bore the Committee by reading out the raft of ministerial statements reinforcing that; we all understand that it is the case. Following the Government's original announcement that they planned to sell to racing, the shadow racing trust was set up to negotiate with the Government. Bearing in mind who might look in on these proceedings, I hope that it is not negotiating at this very time, because such negotiations would be taking place without the chairman, which might be inconvenient.

As we have heard, the trust continues to negotiate with the Government, and rightly so. In November 2002, Lord Lipsey stood down from the Tote board to become chairman of the shadow racing trust. Everything that has happened points to selling to the racing trust. I strongly welcome that, as do my hon. Friends and the racing industry. We understand that the board basis of the trust means that it will have cross-industry representation. It will have an independent chairman and representatives from the British Horseracing Board, which is the industry committee, the Jockey Club, the Racecourse Association, the Racehorse Owners Association, Tote staff and, of course, from punters. A cross-section of the racing industry was involved, and there may well be others represented on the board.

The Tote is part of racing and must remain so. I know that that is known and accepted by the Government, and I am just repeating what is widely understood, but I am concerned that there is nothing in the Bill to turn that into reality. I do not doubt in any way what the Minister has stated in his objectives, or what has been said by the Secretary of State or by the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I am always concerned,

however, that there is many a slip twixt cup and lip, as the old saying has it. Things could go adrift.

Negotiations with the racing trust may break down or, as the hon. Member for Bath suggested, there may be some reason why a negotiation with another body might be necessary. I am trying to ensure that the Bill says that those negotiations should take place only with a body that has racing at its heart, which would ensure that that flow of money comes back into racing. I do not mind whether amendment No. 2 or amendment No. 3 is accepted, or whether the Minister tables a similar amendment that serves the same purpose.

Without trespassing on your generosity, Mr. Sayeed, it is interesting to note that in the next part of the Bill that deals with the levy, the Government have clearly stated that the assets and property of the levy can be used only in the interests of horse racing. I will not read the relevant passage out, but they have included that although they have not put it in the part of the Bill relating to the sale of the Tote. That is a grave omission, and I do not understand it.

I can understand the Minister not wanting his hands to be tied by legislation to sell the Tote to the shadow racing trust, but I do not understand why it is not possible to put constraints in the Bill concerning to whom it should be sold to ensure that it is kept within racing and that the benefits, proceeds, profits and dividends are ploughed back into racing, as we all expect. That is the objective of the amendments. I suspect that the spirit of the amendments will be greeted with support in the Committee and throughout the racing industry, and I hope that the Minister will respond in a way that demonstrates that he understands what we are trying to achieve. We want to ensure, as the Government are doing in part 2, that the proceeds of the action we are taking—the nationalisation and subsequent privatisation of the Tote—remains in the best interests of racing. That is what I am trying to achieve.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I call the current Mr. Foster.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the current Chair of our proceedings, although I note with interest that you will not be our Chairman at all times, Mr. Sayeed. Some changes are pre-ordained; others perhaps are not. I say to you in your temporary post as our Chair that I have much sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. You are obviously studying our proceedings with great interest and you will have noted the first amendment we discussed—No. 49, which I tabled—although I withdrew it for reasons that I gave at the time. That amendment referred to the need for the new body to provide that

''all future operating profits are used to contribute to racing.''

That is a similar intention to that of the hon. Gentleman's amendments.

In this Committee, we have had some difficulty with the approach adopted by the Government in relation to several issues. During our debate on Second Reading, a number of colleagues and I referred to the various gaps in the Bill. At the same time, we said

that we did not for a minute dispute the Government's very clear intentions. In response to one issue raised during that debate, the Minister said:

''What I am saying today at the Dispatch Box is, according to the conventions of the House, a clear statement of the Government's intentions. That is why I do not believe that the provision needs to be included on the face of the Bill.''—[Official Report, 8 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 444.]

In other words, the Minister referred quite rightly to the convention whereby the Government make clear their intention from the Dispatch Box or in Committee, and therefore argue that it is not necessary to include it in the Bill. Taken to its logical extent, that could mean that very little needs to be in the Bill provided that the Minister declares something to be the clear intention of the Government.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire rightly points out that those items that the Government have chosen to include and those that they have chosen not to include form a slightly odd collection. The Bill contains a great deal of detail about how taxation will be dealt with for the new body, but the Minister could have told us in Committee what the Government intend.

However, some more crucial issues, such as whether the Tote will go to the racing trust, which we will debate later, and whether things will be done 50:50 are not in the Bill. Here we have an issue that is at the heart of why we are doing what we are doing—ensuring that whatever happens to the Tote is in the interests of racing—but it has not been included in the Bill. The first parts of the legislation are all about that important issue, whereby the sale of the Tote is designed for the benefit of racing, yet it does not appear.

I am not suggesting that the most appropriate way to resolve the problem is to adopt the words used by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, but at least those words are a vehicle for that. We must hear something more substantial from the Minister in his rejection of the hon. Gentleman's proposals than merely that they do not need to be in the Bill because the Government intend to do those things anyway. He must explain why less important matters are included when that central issue is not.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

The Minister will recall that on Second Reading several hon. Members made the point about the importance of racing. I am not going to gallop over the ground covered by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Rein him in.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

Yes, rein me in.

There are times when we forget that racing is not only a great sport, but a very important industry. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made some points about its importance, and we know that about 100,000 people depend on the industry for their employment. If we get the funding wrong, we put them at risk. When one considers the pecking order of responsibility of enterprises, one finds racing in the top 10. We have to treat it with a great deal of care and consideration.

The funding of racing is based on a number of streams, which are not guaranteed. I am thinking particularly of the current media rights. We all remember what happened to football when its TV and media funding streams collapsed. We already have intimations that the attheraces funding for racecourses could be under consideration. That is a very good deal, but there is talk of it being at risk. No one has mentioned it so far, but the industry also has to deal with the delicate administrations of the Office of Fair Trading, and we have no idea what effect that will have on funding streams.

The Tote is a rock in the middle of such uncertainty. It supports and sponsors individual races and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, it contributes to the levy. I have already mentioned the £100 million that it has given to racing, and where would racing be without that substantial sum? There is a real worry that the Tote might not become a racing trust.

I know that we are back to where we have been on the whole Bill—this matter is a case of, ''Trust me, I'm a politician.'' However, we want to see something a little firmer in the Bill to give the racing industry confidence. I hope that the Minister will consider my hon. Friend's amendments, so that, even if they are not technically correct, in some shape or form they can be used by the Government to give that reassurance.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The transfer of the board and the assets is a simple transfer of assets. In the sale of the Tote, we are dealing with the sale of a company to a new owner. They are different, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would ensure that the Secretary of State could not sell the Tote to anyone other than a racing trust or a similar body. Therefore, as the Minister, I cannot accept them, because that would tie the Government's hands.

As the Secretary of State and I have said on behalf of the Government on a number of occasions, we want to sell the Tote to a racing trust, but as I made clear on Second Reading, the Government have kept the other sale options open. We believe that that is right. We do not specify in the Bill the details of the purchaser, or the type of purchaser, because, if we did, in some unforeseen circumstances we would have to come back to the House of Commons for permission to sell the Tote in a different way. No one can give us a complete guarantee that racing will be in a position to buy it. There could be all sorts of reasons why not, none of which may be financial. In view of the assurances that we have given about an independent valuation, about what is already happening between the shadow trust and the Treasury and about the discussions that are taking place, it would be intolerable if the purchaser—a racing trust or similar body—were to restrict the Government's flexibility in the negotiations. The Government would then have Hobson's choice, because they would be limited by the amendments.

A more important point relates to the industry. As the hon. Member for Bath said, it is not just a sport; it is an industry, and many livelihoods depend on it.

Indeed, we have seen what has happened in recent months and years with the OFT and the like. I hope that the industry can come together in a racing trust and show unity of purpose on behalf of the sport and the industry, so that we can sell with confidence to a trust. That is our intention, but, as a Government, it would be irresponsible to tie ourselves down to the wording of the amendment in the Bill, because we would not be acting in the best interests of taxpayers and the country.

For those reasons I reject the amendments. As I said, we are not talking necessarily about financial issues, but about the possible inability of the sport and the industry to come together to develop a unity of purpose to create a trust. We need to be assured that we can put that trust into their hands.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I have said to the Minister on a number of occasions that I understand the importance of the Government's hands not being tied in the negotiations. Will he 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? If that is the case, would it not be in the best interests of racing simply to keep the status quo?

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

To a hypothetical question, I give a hypothetical answer. The answer is yes, we would sell into something. 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. That is not our intention.

I want to make it clear that we are not prepared to have the hands of Government and our negotiators tied, as they would be in the situation that would arise if we accepted the amendments. We intend to sell to a racing trust, but we are not prepared to put our negotiators into a position where there could be a false price or a false situation.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

We are suddenly and rather surprisingly on difficult ground. The Minister says that there is clear agreement in the House of Commons that the Government should sell the Tote. That is simply not the case. There is clear agreement in the House that the Tote should be sold—on the assurance that the money raised in future by the Tote, or the profits on the money raised, will be used to benefit racing. That is the clear understanding that all Members of the House had when we gave the Bill a Second Reading.

If the Minister is not prepared to say that he will ensure that, whomsoever the Tote might be sold to, whether it is a racing trust or any other body, the profits from that new body will go to racing, we are into a completely different ball game. Surely everything that the Minister has said so far has led us to believe that the Government want to see both the taxpayer and racing do well out of the proposal. However, if he is not prepared to acknowledge that in some circumstances racing could lose out, and that in those circumstances the status quo would be better than selling, I am extremely concerned, and either I

have misunderstood the Government's intention, or it has been misrepresented.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has not misunderstood the Government's intention. We intend to sell into a racing trust. I have said clearly what we have laid out in terms of the shadow trust. We have not gone into setting up a shadow trust or argued forcefully for a seven-year extension so that we can eventually see the Tote going into the racing industry in a robust way only to withdraw and say that we will not sell into a racing trust. However, it would be wrong to tie the hands of the Government and our negotiators and to say that that is the absolute. If that were done, the negotiators would face Hobson's choice.

There is every intention to sell into a racing trust. We said that in our manifesto commitment, but I cannot say that the sport and the industry will develop a trust. That is not in my power, or the Government's power. I would expect the responsibility of the sport and the industry to be such that they would come together to create a trust that the Government could sell the Tote into. I believe that the framework that is being operated to get the price is transparent and fair to the trust and the racing industry. If people want to debate the matter in the Oxford debating society, that is fine, but this is not the Oxford debating society; it is the real world. I am not prepared to tie the hands of our negotiators so that they are limited in their negotiations.

The Government want to sell into a trust. We believe that the sport and the industry should come together to create a trust. We have already indicated our good intentions by supporting the shadow trust, and being part of setting that up. The structure of the Bill reflects those intentions, but I am not prepared to tie the hands of our negotiators so that whoever is negotiating for the trust gets an unfair advantage over them. That is what the wording of the amendments would mean.

Mr John Grogan (Selby, Labour)

I accept the Minister's good intentions and the thrust of his argument. However, he mentions the manifesto. Manifesto commitments are being carefully examined in a variety of contexts at the moment. He also mentioned that the Government would have to come back to Parliament if they decided to sell to anyone other than the racing trust. Will he put on the record how that would be done? Would the matter be debated on the Floor of the House? There would be those of us who would be very worried about how selling to a bookmaker, for example, would be in line with our manifesto commitment. I would be grateful for details of exactly how Parliament would consider such a situation.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I go back to the point that the intention, as set out in the Bill, is to sell the Tote to a racing trust. We are now debating the position if the racing trust falls apart—the nuclear option. I hope that that will not happen and there is nothing to suggest that that would happen, but if it did happen, we would have given a commitment to sell the Tote

and we would have to consider how the sale was made and how we could bring the receipts of that sale back into racing. The Government would have to consider that, and we would take those responsibilities seriously and honour our commitments. How that would be done would be open to negotiation, but we have not come across that scenario because our intention is to sell into a racing trust. We would have to consider the matter if we were unable to sell into a racing trust. I cannot make the position much clearer.

I am not prepared to accept the amendments and to tie the hands of the negotiators to the degree specified in the amendments and, therefore, to put them at a disadvantage in the negotiation of both the price and the development of the Tote into the racing trust.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying and I recognise that he has done his level best to act with the best interests of racing at heart, but I worry that he is being boxed in by the Treasury mandarins when he says so many times that he cannot allow the negotiators' hands to be tied. People like me who support racing are worried that we will end up with people in the Treasury who have no interest in racing trying to set too high a price, and that is when the nuclear option becomes much more worrying for racing. Is that not the difficulty? I recognise the Minister's good intentions, but to what extent is he being told to say what he says by the Treasury?

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

Not at all. I have indicated that the Treasury and the shadow racing trust are already in negotiation. I have indicated that the form used by the racing trust is the form used by the Treasury. There is a coming together of minds on that and we must get the Bill through so that we can get down to the serious negotiations on the actual price, but a tremendous amount of groundwork has been done. I believe that the way in which the shadow racing trust and the Treasury are approaching the matter will enable them to agree a price, which will be transparent, as will the independent advisers. I believe that if the industry gets its act together it can create a trust that will be robust enough to sell the Tote into. I see nothing that will detract from that.

If the trust implodes, however, the matter would have to return to the House of Commons for a new Bill to sell the trust. Fine. That may be the Opposition's intention, but I make it perfectly clear that that is not the Government's intention. We would have cognisance of whom we were selling it to, and we would ensure that it was sold to the benefit of racing wherever possible.

I give that assurance, but I am not prepared to accept the amendments and to tie the hands of the negotiators when they are negotiating with the shadow board and moving it into the trust.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply, not because he has rejected the amendments for not being technically perfect, but because of his other reasons for doing so. We are rapidly moving into a different ball game, and it worries me. The Minister is now saying that the Government will sell the Tote come what may. I accept

his personal intention to sell it to the racing trust if possible, but he talks about that in the future in terms of whether the racing industry can sort itself out and create a trust that he can sell it to. The trust has existed for 18 months.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

Exactly.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister said ''If it can'', as if it were still to do so. I believe it is there: it is ready and waiting. The negotiation over price is still to be achieved, but the trust is there. The Minister must know whether he is happy with that structure, with only the price mechanism to resolve. However, by resisting the amendments, and indeed the spirit of them, which is much more worrying, he is making it clear that if the sale falls through, he does not want to have to come back to the House of Commons to get permission to sell the Tote to somebody else—one of the existing bookmakers, a new venture capital company or anybody. He is determined to sell the Tote, on the slight chance that the sale to the racing trust goes through.

My aim in tabling the amendments is not to ensure that the Tote is sold to the racing trust or the shadow racing trust.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

That is what it says.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

No, that is not what it says. I am sorry, Mr. Sayeed. The Minister says ''That is what it says''. He has not read the amendment. It refers to ''a trust''. The other amendment does not even use the word ''trust''; it simply refers to ploughing any dividend back into racing. I have purposely not tabled an amendment requiring the Minister to sell it to ''the'' racing trust for the very reasons that he rightly described: he should not have his hands tied by the Bill and be forced to sell to a specific organisation. The fact that the Minister intervened from a sedentary position showed that he had not even read the amendments, which makes it even more worrying. He is rejecting amendments that he has not read and fully understood.

I am now extremely concerned that in a year's time we may wish to God that we had not voted for the Bill, as I and my hon. Friends did, because the Government might have gone against the spirit of that support, which was for the Tote to be taken into public ownership and then passed on into the ownership of a shadow racing trust, or at least of an organisation whose sole intent was the benefit of horseracing.

I shall not pursue the amendment to a vote, as that would be pointless, not least because I shall almost certainly want to return to the issue on another occasion. I phrased what I said just now carefully, so that hon. Members could intervene, if they wished, before I completed the necessary formalities.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

Could the hon. Gentleman share with me his understanding of the situation? I accept, incidentally, the sensible approach of withdrawing the amendment now so that he can discuss it later. What is his understanding of the Government's intention? In the unfortunate event that the Government cannot come to a satisfactory

conclusion in negotiations with a body that is prepared to put the profits that it makes from the Tote into racing, the Minister has said that they would have to come back to the House of Commons. At one point he said that they would come back to develop a new Bill, which might have been a slip of the tongue. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government intend to go ahead and sell, even though it is not in the interests of racing, or does he still accept, as the Minister would perhaps like us to believe, that they will definitely sell in the interests of racing? I, for one, am confused.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

My interpretation is that the Minister personally is determined to sell the Tote to the racing trust, but—my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is probably right—the forces of the Treasury and others in the Government will not let him accept the amendments, or even the spirit of them, because the Government intend to sell the Tote, come what may. The Minister is resisting the amendments because they might fetter those to whom the Tote is sold. That is precisely why I have tried to include them in the Bill—so that there is some fettering of those to whom it is sold, to ensure that they act in the best interests of racing. That was my sole intention. It was specifically not to narrow the sale down to the present shadow racing trust.

If the Government resist the amendments, as they are doing, and the Bill remains unamended in this regard, on the slight chance that the negotiations break down, the Government will sell, come what may. I said in my concluding remarks on Second Reading that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to sell the Tote to whomever she wants for however much money she wants. I am concerned that, after less than two hours' discussion, those slightly emotive words seem to be gaining more substance, because the Government are resisting our amendments that are intended to prevent that happening.

I am disappointed in the Minister's response and his attitude. I had hoped that he would be far more generous, though not necessarily by accepting the words of the amendments, as I accept that I do not have the support that the Government have to draft amendments that are technically correct. I hoped that at least he would be prepared to accept that the Bill should refer to the need to ensure that the future ownership of the Tote was in the hands of an organisation whose first interest was to put the money back into racing and not of another organisation—some sort of milch cow—with the £14 million plus that has gone into racing going elsewhere. That was what I sought to achieve. Clearly I shall not do that this morning, so on this occasion, and because I want to return to the subject at a later date, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in

clause 5, page 4, line 3, leave out from 'without' to end of line 3 and insert—

'(a) the consent of the Treasury and

(b) such disposal having been authorised by the Secretary of State by order by Statutory Instrument, which order shall

not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in

clause 5, page 4, line 3, at end add

'; and such disposal shall be authorised by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

These amendments neatly follow the previous group, because they address the situation to which the hon. Member for Bath has just referred and require the sale arrangements that are finally decided to be the subject of an affirmative statutory instrument in the House of Commons The Minister's earlier comments showed clearly that the Government are determined to sell the Tote, and the Bill says nothing about who it should be sold to or the price mechanism for the sale. We shall discuss issues relating to the licence later.

If the situation that the Minister described a few minutes ago were to come to pass and the sale to the racing trust fell through, or for one reason or another he did not believe that the racing trust was a valid purchaser—he stressed that it should not relate simply to the price being paid—he might want to sell the Tote to somebody else, or the Treasury might insist that it was sold to somebody else. I cannot stop that happening if it is not in the Bill. I am trying to ensure that, if that were the case, or in any situation, the Government should come back to the House of Commons with an affirmative statutory instrument, so that at least we would have a say in the matter.

As drafted, the amendments would also require an affirmative statutory instrument for a sale to the racing trust. That is fine. I would envisage a Committee

taking very few minutes to consider such a statutory instrument, but it is a particularly necessary belt-and-braces approach if the Bill is not to contain a number of the issues that it should contain in relation to both the price mechanism and the future owner.

Mr. Foster rose—

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is moving an amendment. I must put the Question before he can take an intervention.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I stand corrected, Mr. Sayeed. Apparently I am not allowed to take an intervention.

I believe that we need a belt-and-braces approach because, if the Minister had been prepared to accept separate amendments to constrain to whom and for how much the Tote should be sold and the length of the lease, it would be much less necessary to ask that the matter should be brought back to the House of Commons for an affirmative statutory instrument. However, the Minister has made it clear that he is not prepared to concede on these important matters, so it is even more important that the sale arrangements should be the subject of an affirmative statutory instrument.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

I think that there was a little clever boxing around the clock. The hon. Member for Bath did not want to continue an intervention that he was not allowed to make because the amendment had not been moved.

Amendment No. 33—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.