| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 11 is headed, "Preparatory work by the Tote". We have made clear, and I have repeated it today, that we will not make those changes following preparatory work until we are ready to proceed with a sale. We have made clear that we intend to sell to a racing trust.
Baroness Noakes: I understand that and I am grateful to the Minister for saying it again, but I am probing why the Government need a power of direction to tell the Tote to do something. The Minister mentioned extreme circumstances and the only extreme circumstance about which I have heard is in connection with selling the Tote to something other than a racing trust. I am trying to probe that power of direction. A power of direction is never there to help another organisation; it is there to tell that organisation what to do when it does not want to do it. Even if the power is not actually used, the existence
of the power to issue a direction is often used as an effective threat. That is why we are probing why the power of direction is needed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The negotiations are between the Tote and a racing trust. Suppose that something goes wrong in the negotiation between the Tote and a racing trust. Someone must have power to protect the taxpayer and the public interest, and that is what the clause provides.
Lord Lipsey: In support of my noble friend, first, the issue of what should happen should a sale to the Racing Trust fall through has been raised. My view is that we should tackle that at the time depending on the circumstances that caused it. If the circumstances that caused it were that the Government were totally unreasonable about the price, that would be one situation.
However, the circumstances might be that the shadow trust was unable to proceed, perhaps because the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I changed the habits of a lifetime and fell out irreconcilably. I cannot believe any such thing, but that would lead to a different set of circumstances. Without knowing the circumstances, I could not take the view that it would necessarily be best for the status quo to remain; it might be best for there to be a sale with a large share of the proceeds going to racing. I hope that we will never reach such a second best situation, because I think that we would get the best situation, with the protection that we debated at such length in our previous sitting under Amendment No. 2.
As for the clause, I find the width of the Secretary of State's discretion rather comforting. The Tote board has been concerned about its powers to fund certain kinds of spending, for example. Those concerns may not be well-founded. Having read through more pages of the legal advice on the subject given to the Tote board than I care to remember, I would not like to express a definite view. But the clause enables the Secretary of State to set at rest the Tote board's mind by saying, "I am telling you to do this, so do it". It would not have to worry any more about advice from Slaughter and May or anyone else.
In those circumstances, it is helpful for the sale if that wide discretion is given to the Secretary of State. I therefore urge those who favour the sale to support the clause as drafted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend Lord Lipsey helpfully confirms what I just said: that the clause as drafted is intended to help the Tote in circumstances where it may not be sure whether it has power. His intervention is also helpful because he has, perhaps without realising it, corrected me. The negotiations are between the Government and a racing trust. The problem that could arise would be if the Tote, which must be involved, had difficulties with the negotiations or any agreement arrived at. That is why
the reserve powers are necessary. However, as my noble friend says, the likelihood of their being exercised is small.
Lord Moynihan: I had not intended to, but must pick the Minister up on one comment. At no time did I make a threat to the House or to the Committee. The threat to racing is to nationalise the Tote and sell it off to whomever the Treasury so decides at whatever price and under whatever circumstances it so wishes. That is the threat to racing. Under those conditions, racing would no longer be the beneficiary of the Tote.
I simply state clearly that our policy is to seek to protect the successor body to ensure that racing remains the beneficiary. Under Part 1 as drafted, that is not the case. When we return to debate this on Report, I underline for the record, as I did by going wide of the precise amendment but very much on purpose, that if the Government intend to continue with drafting that removes from the successor body the necessity that it operates in the interests of racing, the Committee should be aware that we on these Benches cannot support the Bill. That is no threat; it is a clear definition of policy, which I hope I have made clear.
As for the narrow amendment, we had a useful exchange of views. I was deeply disappointed that the Minister could not come up with a better example than the very concern that exists on these Benches about the future of the Tote—namely, that it may not be sold to the Racing Trust, but could be sold off to another body at a significantly greater price without protection either for the pool betting system that that Tote currently operates or for racing. I am very disappointed that that was the only example that we were given, but we will return to the matter. We must return to the matter on Report because, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, it is critical. It is fundamental to the future of racing. Part 1 needs to be far more explicit about protecting the future interests of racing. As drafted, it is unacceptable. We will table further amendments and I will, wearing a "lover of racing" hat, as shadow Minister for Sport, and as a strong and consistent supporter of the Tote, look to Parliament to ensure that the future of racing is protected by Part 1 and not, to use the Minister's word, threatened. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 15 [Abolition of levy]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 33:
- Page 10, line 33, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: In its seventh report, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee offered views on the delegated powers in the Bill. It made one recommendation for an amendment to Clause 15.
Clause 15 enables the Government to commence under order-making powers the abolition of the horserace betting levy system. No parliamentary procedure was specified. Clause 15(2)(c) as drafted enables an order under Clause 15(1) to make consequential provision that can include amending enactments.
The committee was concerned that consequential amendments could be made to primary legislation without Parliament having the opportunity to consider the amendments. It considered that such a power should normally be subject to affirmative procedure but, given that the power was limited to consequential provision, it recommended that the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny should be the negative resolution procedure.
The Government accept that recommendation, and the amendment in my name provides that the negative resolution procedure will apply to all orders made under Clause 15(1). I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan: We begin Part 2 in agreement. That is welcome. I appreciate that the Minister and the Government have responded to the useful work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in considering the Bill. We are pleased to share with the Government the concern that its recommendation be reflected in the Bill. I am pleased to say that the Minister's amendment places some small check on the Government's power to abolish the levy. In that context, we support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 34:
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 cover two important aspects of the invaluable contribution made by the Levy Board. It is important and appropriate for the Committee to pay tribute to the work of the Levy Board under the chairmanship of Robert Hughes and, in particular, to the dedicated work of its staff and the chief executive, Rodney Brack.
On the important issue of rare breeds, we heard from my noble friend Lord Soulsby drawing on his experience as chairman of the veterinary advisory committee to the board for some 12 years. Perhaps it would be useful for the Committee if I briefly recap what my noble friend Lord Soulsby said on 2 March;
To expand on that, the Levy Board supports the improvement of the thoroughbred horse through the breeders' prize scheme for British breeds. It also supports rare, native non-thoroughbred horses and ponies by making grants to the breed societies of the breeds concerned. The breeders' prizes scheme was introduced in 1993 under a scheme operated by the Thoroughbred Breeders' Association in conjunction with Weatherbys. Its aim is to improve the quality of the British thoroughbred racehorse by upgrading the quality of breeding stock in Britain. Under the scheme, the breeder of the winner of a qualifying race is paid a prize computed by reference to the minimum value of the race category concerned, where the winner is a British-bred horse. The allocation to the breeders' prize scheme in 2003 was substantial.
Grants for non-thoroughbred breeds are also important. The Levy Board has supported non-thoroughbred breeds since the early 1960s. The grant is made by breeders' societies and the aim is to improve and maintain the quality of pure breeding among Britain's native breeds of horse and pony. Current policy is to support the native breeds that are recognised as rare by the Rare Breeds Survival Trust and the funding exists in preserving those breeds as well as maintaining their quality.
Breed societies use their grants to preserve and improve their breeds in a variety of ways, principally through stallion and mayor premiums, young stock grants, DNA testing or blood typing and inspectors' training, among other things. That is clearly important work, and it is right and proper that we put safeguards into the Bill to protect and promote that vital aspect of the Levy Board's work.
Amendment No. 35, which is grouped, seeks to put in place long-term contractual funding arrangements to ensure that the excellent work of the Levy Board in funding vets at racecourses is continued. Again, thanks to my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, we have heard about that work.
It is clear that the amendment does not cover all the areas of work that the Levy Board funds to improve veterinary science; nor is it intended to. Briefly, to recap on the work that the levy funds for veterinary research, it has wisely provided research scholarships, clinical scholarships, travel grants, codes of practice for some particularly virulent equine diseases that relate to breeding—among other things—and a laboratory approval scheme for testing the health of breeding mares and stallions. That is supported by regular newsletters and equine research projects.
It would be helpful to learn what plans the Government have to ensure that the good work of the Levy Board in that area continues and that long-term contractual arrangements are in place. As I mentioned earlier, the Government's fine words are appreciated, but there is nothing in the Bill at present to match those intentions. I beg to move.
"( ) An order under subsection (1) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
Page 10, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) unless satisfied that long term contractual arrangements are in place for the funding of the protection and promotion of equine rare breeds."
"Support for the Rare Breeds Survival Trust would, to my mind, play an important part in maintaining our national heritage and we should not lose sight of that in this major reorganisation of the levy system. The new legislation does not specify what shall be funded, neither does it give any guarantee that funding will be safeguarded in either the short term or the long term".—[Official Report, 2/3/04; col. 568.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page