| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Moynihan: I am very grateful to the Minister for that undertaking. It would be helpful if that letter could be distributed to Members of the Committee so that they would be able to consider it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Strictly speaking, Members of the Committee means the whole House. However, I shall distribute it to those who have attended our sittings.
Lord Moynihan: I appreciate that but, recognising that there are noble Lords who have a particular interest in the subject, I urge the Minister and his officials to ensure that they receive copies of his letter as soon as it is available.
Clause 16 [Property of the Levy Board]:
Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 36A:
- Page 11, line 7, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: These two amendments are probing, being designed to find out how much influence the Government want over the transfer of the Levy Board's assets. They will ensure that, when the Secretary of State directs the Levy Board to draw up a transfer scheme, she also tells it which assets she wants to go where.
We do not intend the Secretary of State's directions about the transfer scheme to be binding. That is why we have also introduced an amendment to give the House the ultimate approval in the event of a disagreement between the Levy Board and the Secretary of State. In drawing up the amendments, I have also thought about removing paragraphs (b) and (c), so that the Secretary of State should have no power to say which assets should go where in her initial directions to the Levy Board.
The reason for deciding on the wording of the amendments is to help to protect racing from the Office of Fair Trading looking to overturn any decisions about where the assets eventually end up. My understanding—I would welcome clarification from the Minister—is that the OFT would be reluctant to intervene where Ministers have given clear directions. The important point raised by the amendments is to make it clear to Parliament who is responsible for deciding where the assets of the Levy Board will be directed. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The important way to look at the amendments is to read subsection (3) in conjunction with subsection (2), which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the board to make and submit to the Secretary of State a transfer scheme. The expectation is that the Levy Board, together with its advisers, will draft the transfer scheme. We do not anticipate that the Secretary of State will need to involve herself in the detail of the transfer scheme as the Levy Board will know its own property, rights and liabilities better than the Secretary of State. However, the provisions give the Secretary of State the option to specify which assets are transferred and to whom.
The provisions are not particularly new. There are many other examples in other legislation, such as in Section 2 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1995, which I have already quoted. Subsection (3)(b) and (c) avoids making it a mandatory requirement for the
Secretary of State to specify what property, rights and liabilities are to be contained in a scheme and to whom they should be transferred. That is left to the good sense of the Levy Board and its professional advisers.The Secretary of State will look to the Levy Board to ensure that the best interests of racing are safeguarded under the terms of the scheme, and subsection (6) imposes on her an obligation to check the scheme so that the property, rights and liabilities will be used for the purposes specified in that subsection. Subsection (3) is designed both to allow the Secretary of State to leave the Levy Board to decide what matters are to be covered by the scheme and the person to be specified in it as transferee; and to allow her to specify in the direction the transferee, the activities or undertakings, the property, rights and liabilities to be transferred.
We think that the drafting of the amendment properly identifies the responsibilities of the Levy Board and the Secretary of State, with a back-up for the protection of racing in subsection (6).
Lord Moynihan: Once again, the Minister is being extremely helpful to the Committee. That was a very clear analysis, in view of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36B not moved.]
Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 37:
- Page 11, line 10, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a probing amendment. There is such unity on both sides of the Committee about most of the issues concerning Part 2 that the majority of points that the Opposition wish to raise are probing. The amendment's aim is to press the Minister on the future prospects of the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory once it is transferred to the British Horseracing Board. That is particularly important given the potential for the HFL to test human samples in the near future.
The levy operates the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory, the anti-doping agency for horses, which is one of the most experienced and accredited animal drug-detection agencies in the world. It is not an overstatement to describe the HFL as having achieved the gold standard among such agencies. It is a body of which we in this country can be rightly proud.
It is worth drawing the Committee's attention to the excellent work undertaken by the HFL. It is a research laboratory that conducts high integrity drug analysis in a wide range of biological matrices. Since 1963, the HFL has successfully provided drug surveillance services to British horseracing, thus helping to maintain the integrity of the sport for participants and the betting industry. There is an experienced team of more than 25 people who between them have hundreds of years of cumulative experience and knowledge.
The HFL has three principal business areas: drug surveillance for racing bodies in the UK and further afield; bioanalysis to support pharmaceutical drug
As the Committee is aware, it is intended that the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory will be transferred to the British Horseracing Board. Members from the various bodies responsible for the sport, including directors from the Jockey Club and the Racehorse Owners Association, sit on that board. That raises the question of whether there would be a conflict of interest as a result of the horseracing authorities themselves owning the horseracing anti-doping laboratory. That point is not specifically covered by my amendment, but I would be very interested—as would the Committee as a whole, I am sure—to hear the Minister's view on that potential conflict of interest.
The Committee may also be aware that recent reports have suggested that the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory is seeking accreditation from the World Anti-Doping Agency—WADA—in order to be able to carry out drug testing on humans. Indeed, I understand that the HFL has carried out drug testing on human athletes in the past. WADA clearance is expected in May, and I ask whether the Government have any intention of seeking to establish the equine laboratory as an anti-doping testing centre for humans in the future. How would the structure of reporting work, to both the British Horseracing Board and UK Sport? If an issue conflicted between the priorities and objectives of those two organisations, what structure would be in place to resolve it?
As I said, at this stage of our consideration the amendment is probing, but the issues that it raises are important. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We can start with having a good deal in common. I am happy to endorse what the noble Lord says about the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory. Of course, by far the most significant assets of the Levy Board are the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory and the capital fund. For the record, I repeat that our intention is to transfer those assets to the British Horseracing Board.
The noble Lord is right about the laboratory, which is a world-renowned centre for equine drug testing and provides an excellent service to the Jockey Club and its clients. We expect that the majority of its work will continue to be for horseracing. However, we see no reason to restrict the flexibility of the HFL to diversify its activities and become even more successful. He is right to say that the HFL has applied to the World Anti-Doping Agency for permission to test human samples. We await its decision, but we see no reason why the Government should stand in the way of its reasonable ambitions on that.
Indeed, there could be human rights considerations if we were to take legislative powers to interfere with how a private company lawfully conducts its business. Of course, UK Sport will consider whether it wishes to use the HFL, but that is a matter for UK Sport, not the Government. In the interests of light regulation, the racing industry and the HFL, we do not support the amendment.
"( ) shall specify that the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory shall not be able to carry out drug tests on anything other than horses and dogs."
6.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page