| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Hugh Robertson: Given that the occasions when the Government decide they should give more power to Parliament rather than keep it for themselves are few and far between, I can only welcome the amendment. We should be grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's seventh report, which recommended that clause 15 should be amended. The Committee wrote:
"Clause 15(1) provides for an order, subject to no Parliamentary procedure, activating repeals and the dissolution of the Horserace Betting Levy Board . . . Clause 15(2)(c) enables the order under clause 15(1) also to make consequential provision which can include amending enactments. The Committee normally expects such provisions to be subject to the affirmative procedure but, in this instance, since the provision is limited to consequential provision and in the light of Schedule 4 to the bill, the Committee recommends that the appropriate level of Parliamentary procedure in this case is negative procedure."
If Members understand that, they are doing much better than me.
Accordingly, in Committee, the Government tabled an amendment to provide that the negative resolution procedure will apply to all orders made under
14 Oct 2004 : Column 476
clause 15(1). It is right that the Government responded appropriately to the recommendations and I am grateful to them for doing so.
My colleagues in the other place expressed several concerns about the timing of the abolition of the levy and have sought assurances to protect the legacy of the Horserace Betting Levy Board's good work. Unfortunately, despite the force of our arguments, we did not manage to convince the Government that they should make important changes, so, given that the amendment places a check—albeit a small one—on the Government's power to abolish the levy, I offer it our support.
Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): I echo the words of the Minister and of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). The Committee proceedings were conducted with a conviviality that is not usual in political affairs; the whole Committee came together in a single drive to ensure that, in particular, the Tote was returned to a racing trust. I was surprised and delighted by that atmosphere and only wish that our other debates could be conducted in similar fashion.
I welcome moves for the abolition of the levy. It has been a source of friction over the years. I can understand the Secretary of State's wanting to get rid of it at the earliest possible opportunity, but there have been a number of difficulties.
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the spirit in which our deliberations in Committee were conducted. In view of his belief, which I share, that the most appropriate sale would be to a racing trust, does he acknowledge that some difficulties were created in another place by some of his colleagues who took a rather different view? Does he disagree with them?
Mr. Page: I am very disappointed that the hon. Gentleman endeavours to bring friction where there was peace and unanimity. However, bearing in mind the political party he comes from, that situation can be taken as the norm. My noble Friend was simply trying to tease out further the Government's commitment to a sale to a racing trust. He in no way wanted to scupper the Bill or see it destroyed; he did what he did for the purposes of clarity and explanation. Personally, I would have gone about things slightly differently, but there we are. We all take individual approaches to our aims and objectives in life.
I welcome abolition of the levy, but I want to ensure that what takes its place will be for racing, so I welcome the Minister's statement that the provisions will be subject to resolution by Parliament. It is extremely important that the statements by Ministers over the years that the sale will be to a racing trust actually come to pass. We take the racing industry very much for granted in the UK. It is not fully appreciated that 100,000 people are employed in the industry and if it is put at risk it could go abroad, as so much of our manufacturing has done. All the trials and tribulations and dramas of the past year or so have actually put our racing industry on to a strong basis.
Some of the major owners—the gentlemen from the Arab states—have behaved with a dignity and maturity that I can but admire, and in some cases wish was
14 Oct 2004 : Column 477
emulated in the rest of the industry, and have given tremendous support. I want nothing that would drive them away. The amendment offers further reassurance about the way forward, so I can only hope that when it reaches the statute book the Government move quickly to see the Tote put into the hands of a racing trust for the benefit of racing.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I fully support the racing trust concept for the future of the Tote and welcome the acceptance of the amendment, which applies some additional parliamentary protection in respect of the abolition of the levy. I want to make three points about why that protection may be important.
The levy has been criticised; it has been a matter for dispute. One advantage enjoyed by the levy board is that by custom and practice it has always included an independent Scottish member to protect the particular interests of Scottish racing. That provision was not in the legislation, but came about through custom and accord. Many Scottish Members are worried that the successor organisation, the British Horseracing Board, has no such organisational connection with Scottish racing. Some of us held a cross-party meeting with the BHB this morning to discuss that point, and we await its proposals on how it will accommodate the specific dimension of Scottish racing in its structures. The Minister for the Arts will know that the Minister for Sport and Tourism has expressed his sympathy and support for, and interest in, the matter, so I hope that she is aware of the situation.
3.30 pm
My other two points relate to the funding of racing. We read in this morning's Racing Post that the future system of support for the racing industry will depend on hypothecation relating to betting turnover. However, at least one major bookmakers firm, Ladbrokes, intends to try to charge the industry to supply it with information on which to base the hypothecation. While a firm may legitimately charge a fee for commercial data, the future funding of racing will depend on that information, so it will not be commercial data. Incidentally, that information cannot come from only one company because it must be produced by all bookmakers and betting exchanges if it is to provide a solid base of information for the future funding of racing. What is the Minister's view of a company that apparently wants to hold the rest of the racing industry to ransom by demanding payment for information? Such an arrangement would put a question mark over the basis of the new funding settlement.
Whatever the faults, trials and tribulations of the levy board, it provided a balance so that informed judgments could be made on developments in racing that were for the good of the sport as a whole. The various interested parties in racing have reached an agreement that in addition to the hypothecation from betting revenue there will be a development fund. The fund will apply to races that might not be especially commercial and might involve only a few runners, yet are essential preparatory races for other events because if they were not to take place, the eventually championship races up to which
14 Oct 2004 : Column 478
they led could encounter considerable difficulties. The development fund will be part of the new concept, but it might make up only as little as 6 per cent. of racing's overall revenue. It cannot be right that the money available to support racing as a sport should be such a small percentage of the overall revenue generated by the racing industry.
I support the amendment, the Government's willingness to accept it and the camaraderie with which we will, I hope, proceed towards a racing trust running the Tote. However, before we all celebrate the departure of the levy and the levy board, we must remember that that system of funding included vital protections. It is up to the Government to tell us that those protections will continue to be offered under the new framework towards which we are moving.
Estelle Morris: I thank the hon. Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for their contributions. It is clear from our short debate that it is essential for us to accept the Lords amendment. There is general agreement about the course of action that has been taken, but understandable worry about whether the benefit that has accrued to the industry will continue under the new arrangements. Indeed, the industry is thriving and it contributes to our nation economically and in other ways.
I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will appreciate that I have come to the Bill exceptionally late in its passage and, if I am honest, I have not taken a day-to-day interest in it throughout its stages in the Commons and the Lords. I shall refrain from commenting on the article in today's Racing Post.
I hope that the procedure that we are adopting means that there will be an opportunity for both Houses to discuss legitimate concerns about percentages, the meaning of data that may be sold as a commercial activity and the protection of the industry. I hope that the general principles are agreed and that debates on detail will be held in both Houses.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |