---

The Tote

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall return to Europe in a moment, but I am aware that time is pressing on. I am concerned about the open-market sale, first because that was not what we agreed to when we passed the 2004 Act. Secondly, as I asked the right hon. Gentleman in an intervention, if there is a open-market sale, how can we ensure that racing continues to get the same amount of money from the Tote after the process is finished? We have heard a great deal about the 50-50 split, with 50 per cent. going back into racing, but that poses questions. First, what is racing? Secondly, would it get through Europe? The right hon. Gentleman says that it should—not that it would—but the previous proposal should have, too. Important though the money from the sale would be, it would be much less than if the sale had taken place last year, because of the market conditions. Also, it would be a one-off payment. The important thing is the Tote's year-on-year contribution to racing. If I highlight any point that I am making, it is that. We find ourselves in a difficult situation. We all know that Europe intervened, as we have discussed, and it is my submission that the European judgment was wrong. That is the view of the all-party group on the racing and bloodstock industries, which is very active. For example, the EU referred to the Tote as a ““public company””, but it is a public company only because the Government nationalised it. It stated that a transfer below market value would constitute aid, but who exactly would it aid? The company is already up and running, and has been for 80 years. The proposal was not to transfer the Tote to another company, which probably would have constituted state aid, but a simple administrative change whereby the Tote could, for example, have appointed its own chairman. That is not state aid. The EU went on to state that such a transfer or sale would ““distort the betting market””. I am not sure how many bureaucrats in Europe actually go into betting shops or place bets, but that is simply nonsense. The organisation has been taking bets for 80 years. If the Tote, instead of the Minister, appointed its chairman, how would that distort the betting market? It is palpable nonsense, so the Government should challenge that ruling. I am romantic in that I want the Tote to be transferred to the racing trust and believe that that can be achieved. I do not agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of how it should be done, but I agree in principle that that should be achieved. We are at a crossroads in the financing of racing, and it would be a huge boost to racing if it could run a successful business that continued to put money back into racing. However, I fear that the Minister, whom I greatly admire and consider a friend, is not quite powerful enough to overcome the Treasury's demands. I do not know whether racing or the Treasury will benefit from those demands. A couple of Fridays ago, we had about 145 people at a charity dinner in the House for the Injured Jockeys Fund. In one night, we raised more than £50,000. It was a fantastic night and brought together the warring factions of racing for once. There is an appetite for moving forward together, and I hope that the Treasury does not prevent us from doing that.