Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 3, at end add:

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

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

I have had an interesting lunchtime. I have just met representatives of the racing industry, to discuss not the Tote or the lottery but another issue that is exercising their minds: the Office of Fair Trading. Representatives of the British Horseracing Board were there, as were race course owners, the Racecourse Association, the Jockey Club and members of the Trade and Industry Committee. I took the opportunity to reflect on this morning's proceedings, and was reassured that there would be a racing trust and that there would be no falling out within the industry. I hope that that reassures the Committee.

Amendment No. 33 seeks to give Parliament a role in the further approval of the sale of the Tote, and amendment No. 5 offers an alternative drafting to the same end. The legislation is drafted to give the Secretary of State discretion over when and to whom the Tote is sold. We are asking Parliament to accept the Bill on that basis. In the unlikely event that we are unable to sell the Tote to a racing trust, we would need to consider how to give the racing industry the benefit of the stake that we acknowledge it has in the Tote. How we do that will depend on the circumstances: the Government will discuss with the industry how best to achieve that. I therefore ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I cannot say that I am surprised. It has been the lot of Ministers over millennia—not just Ministers in

this Government—to resist measures to put statutory instruments into Bills. Even though they usually stuff Bills full of statutory instruments for secondary legislation themselves, they always resist any attempt to put one in to constrain a Minister's freedom of action.

I shall leave it to you to judge, Mr. Sayeed, but I think that it is in order for the Minister to comment on the assurance that he has received from the racing industry in the last few minutes that there will be a racing trust. That is tantamount to saying that these amendments are unnecessary, because he is going to get the sale that we all want. I have never been in any doubt about there being a racing trust. I do not know how other members of the Committee feel, but the Minister's earlier comments led me to think that it was he who doubted whether there would be a suitable racing trust to which he felt he could sell the Tote. I have never doubted that there would be a trust and I am glad that he received reaffirmation of that at lunchtime.

However, my concern is not with the Minister in particular. If, as I have said repeatedly—I fear that I shall do so again during our proceedings—for some reason we find ourselves in the hands of a different Minister or Secretary of State before the Committee concludes its business, we may find that this Minister's undertakings, which I readily take at face value, may prove to be less substantial than we should like. However, even I can do arithmetic and I see no point in pursuing the matter to a vote.

I am sorry that the Minister will not give us the fall-back position of a statutory instrument. I take at face value his assurance that, if the Government are unable to proceed to a sale to racing, he will consider carefully what to do and will consult the racing industry. I hope that he will also consult hon. Members in all parts of the House who take an interest in these matters: I include particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who is one of the joint chairmen of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock. In the unfortunate event of there not being a sale, I hope that everyone will be content and will agree on the right way forward. On the understanding that the Minister will do that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

The clause allows shares in the successor company to be issued to the Secretary of State in anticipation of the company's onward sale to the racing trust. It provides the mechanism by which the Tote will be transferred into private ownership. The clause is therefore fundamental to the policy aims of the Bill. Without it, the Secretary of State would have no means by which to sell the Tote. The basic premise of the clause is clear, but it may help if I outline the way in which it will be used.

The expectation is that the Secretary of State will request the successor company to issue securities to her on the appointed day. That will enable her to sell the successor company on to the proposed purchaser—the racing trust—in the way that we intend. The company will be valued, and the racing trust will pay the Government a price reflecting the stake that racing currently has in the whole Tote business.

There is no plan for the Secretary of State to retain shares in the successor company longer than is necessary to facilitate the sale. However, I reiterate that further details on the mechanics of the sale and, in particular, the identity of the purchaser cannot be provided in the Bill. Parliament is asked to support the Bill on that basis, and the clause must be considered against that background.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

I seek clarification of some of the comments that were made at the Committee's first sitting. We got a bit excited about the difference between ''the'' racing trust and ''a'' racing trust. I gained huge confidence from the Minister's comments about his lunchtime meeting with the dignitaries and power brokers of the racing industry. I sincerely hope that everything that he talks about comes to a conclusion, but it was said that if that did not happen, everything would have to return to the House in order for the process to be restarted. If ''the'' racing trust somehow fails, could ''a'' racing trust come forward and take over the process without the need for a return to the House for all the legislative change to which the Minister referred and to which Opposition Members would object?

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

It is our intention to sell the company to a racing trust. I hope that we can sell it to ''the'' racing trust. That should reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.