Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 48, in

clause 15, page 10, line 11, at end insert

'subject to receipt of the agreement of the Office of Fair Trade,'.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. We have made great progress under your co-Chairman, Mr. Sayeed, which I hope we shall continue.

The second part of the Bill deals with the Horserace Betting Levy Board. The Committee will be aware of the relevant history. Until the 1960s, money was transferred from the bookmakers to the racing industry through a voluntary arrangement, but in the early 1960s more formal arrangements establishing the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the levy that goes with it were put in place. However, many people in the industry and the Government have been seeking for some time a different arrangement that removes Government interference and regulation. As the Bill is a deregulatory measure, we are pleased to support the Government's proposals, as I am sure the equally deregulatory Conservative party is.

You will be aware, Mr. Illsley, from reading the record of our deliberations that at the end of Tuesday's sitting the Minister seemed to think that the Liberal Democrats were not keen on deregulation, but I can assure him that we are. That is why we are happy to support the Government's intention, which is broadly supported in the racing industry, to abolish the board and the levy and to find an alternative arrangement.

As the Committee is only too well aware, the problem is that there is now some doubt about the

alternative developed by the board, the industry and the bookmakers because of the involvement of the Office of Fair Trading in the industry and sport of horse racing. As a result, there is considerable doubt about whether the proposed mechanism, which primarily involves the sale of data to the bookmakers, will be possible. I was delighted to hear the Minister say on Second Reading that he was aware of that problem. He would be, as he has been closely involved, and he went on to say that, as a result of the concerns that had been expressed, the Government had decided to extend the life of the levy board to September 2006. As the industry agrees, that is a sensible move. However, the Bill contains nothing to ensure that we can be confident that a satisfactory and agreed alternative will be put in place before the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the levy are abolished.

We know that the industry, the Government and the bookmakers intend to find an alternative that ensures that money continues to go into racing for a number of important purposes, including improvements in the breeding of horses and the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and education for the improvement of horse racing generally. There is a clear desire for a mechanism to be found to achieve that result. Racing brings about £70 million or £80 million into the industry for those activities, so an alternative is necessary. The problem is that we do not know what that alternative will be. We know that there are question marks about the existing arrangements. The Government have acknowledged the difficulty and have sought to assist in bringing various parts of the industry together to find a way forward in respect of OFT rule 14 issues and, if necessary, to look for an alternative way forward in the light of any OFT ruling, although we do not know when that will happen or even what it will be.

The amendment is an attempt to find a different way of ensuring that nothing moves forward until we are sure that what happens will not be rejected again by the OFT. It seeks to introduce a new mechanism that is agreed by all the relevant parties and will have the agreement of the OFT. That will ensure that instead of having a fixed date, as the Minister is suggesting, we can leave things open until those issues are settled. We are also conscious of an impending European Court case on the British Horseracing Board's ability to hold pre-race data centrally. Clearly, that issue must also be borne in mind and resolved before any new solution can be found.

When I was in discussion yesterday with the British Horseracing Board, I was delighted to hear that there is a new impetus in the industry to find a new way forward. We, the board and the industry want to ensure that, whatever the solution is, it will be sustainable and ensure that funds continue to go into the industry. The amendment provides a simple mechanism to ensure that we do not move forward unless we are sure that we have got the solution right and that it is not likely to fall foul of the OFT.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

May I add my welcome to you, Mr. Illsley,

and express the hope that our progress under your chairmanship will be as fast as it was under that of Mr. Sayeed? Having heard your sotto voce comment earlier, we must wait and see.

The OFT issue is critical to part 1 and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is right to refer to it. I must admit that I am not entirely convinced that his amendment is the right way of dealing with that issue because it relates to the abolition of the levy rather than to the successor arrangements. I have tabled amendments to later provisions in this part of the Bill to require the transfer plan, which I think is the central point, to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman is simply suggesting that the OFT should approve the abolition of the levy, which is not really the point. I cannot see that there is a problem with the abolition of the levy, and whether something is put in its place is not a matter for the OFT. I know that that is not his intention, which I think is exactly the same as mine: that we should not proceed with the totality of part 2, which covers abolition of the levy and the transfer scheme that goes with it, and abolition of the board, until we are certain that there is a robust mechanism for alternative funding of the racing industry, as well as the sale of data and media rights, although that issue has largely been resolved. We briefly discussed the sale of data on Tuesday and I shall not detain the Committee by going through it again.

However, it is abundantly clear that the number of race courses would decline if OFT rule 14 were to stand. That would mean a break-up of the competitive nature of the balance between the racing provider and the consumer in the main bookmakers in bidding for data rights. As the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said on Second Reading, it seems absurd that the OFT should propose that race course owners should not be allowed to group together to sell data rights when bookmakers can group together to buy them. That seems a slightly odd position for the OFT to adopt.

I welcomed the Minister's inferences—they were no more than that—in that Second Reading debate. He made it clear that the Government were sympathetic to the problems that would arise and referred to a letter that the Secretary of State had sent to the OFT, but which cannot be published. I take it—perhaps I am rash to do so—that the letter expresses concerns about the potential impact of the rule 14 notice on the racing industry. I hope that the OFT will amend its stance and that the industry will come to an agreement in its discussions, as that is critical. As I intimated, I shall speak to amendments later that would enable us to put off rule 14 until we are convinced that there are alternative orders.

None the less, I entirely support what the Government are trying to do. The levy is an anachronism, particularly with regard to the role of the Secretary of State in settling it. The concept of shifting to a much more commercial arrangement is right. I simply want to ensure that we do not jump

before we know what we are jumping into and that there are viable alternative arrangements for the racing industry.

I believe that that is what the hon. Member for Bath is suggesting in his amendment. In principle, I support what he is trying to achieve. Let us see what the Minister says. My gut feeling is that the amendment does not achieve its intention, but the hon. Member for Bath is right to say that the current deliberations of the OFT are central to the future of the levy board and what comes after it. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. We support the end of the levy, but we want to ensure that we do not get rid of it before we know exactly what will replace it.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

May I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley? If you have a chance to read the record of the previous two sittings, you will discover that they have been conducted with good humour on all sides. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), my new-found friend the hon. Member for Bath—we will leave his wife and her postcards out of this—and I have made various requests of the Minister, who has put his hand somewhere near his heart, or perhaps his wallet, and said, ''Trust me. I shall ensure that all your concerns are recognised in the fullness of time.'' We poor trusting souls have agreed to that, and we are looking forward with great anticipation to the Report stage.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I appreciate and understand the thrust of the amendment but have doubts about whether it would achieve its basic intention. Equally, I understand why the Government want to get rid of the levy board. It is unacceptable that a Secretary of State should be drawn into what is essentially a business transaction, and I can appreciate their wanting to say goodbye to the board as soon as possible.

However, in discussing the amendment, we must also be careful that we clearly understand the value of the levy board. Many a time I have been to various race courses, particularly in the winter. I stand on corrugated iron—

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

On the roof.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

Or on the roof. I stand on concrete steps under a corrugated iron roof, the rain drips down, it is windy and I think, ''I really am enjoying this.'' This is where the levy board plays an important part. Over the years, it has been responsible for seeing many of our race courses upgraded, because it wants to make racing more enjoyable. Is it a coincidence that the number of people going racing has over the past couple of years gone from 5 million to 6 million? That is just the start. The number of people going to the races will climb higher and higher.

If we were at the filibustering stage, I would read out all the contributions that the levy board has made to race courses over the past few years. The list is most impressive, but I will not do so. I just want to make the point that the levy board has spread its money between the big courses and the small. It gave £600,000 to

Fakenham, which, dare I say it, is one of the more remote courses. People need a guide dog and a map to get there, but it is a pleasant place. Indeed, Fakenham is very up and down, but that contributes to the individuality of British racing. In addition, the levy board has given £3.5 million to Sandown, where Members can see some new stands.

On top of all the support that the levy board gives to race courses, it gives important support to the veterinary side of racing. I have been to some of its seminars and the work being put into understanding the conditions of the horse, and how the horse population can be cared for and advanced, is most impressive. Indeed, the efforts of the levy board, under the leadership of Rob Hughes, are exceedingly valuable and we must not see them go. They must be protected in some shape or form.

On the abolition of the levy board, there are a variety of ways in which the Secretary of State can move to see it taken on into another arrangement. I have to point out, however, that the financing of racing does not involve a solid, guaranteed income stream. It depends on a number of things, including media rights.

We watch with considerable concern the attheraces discussions that are taking place. The deal that has already been done for the race courses may be put in doubt. We must ensure that whatever we do means that the successor to the levy board can continue and continue to be financed, and that there is not a short-term deal that collapses in a short time. That is where the OFT puts a potential spanner in the works. Its remit is closely drawn—too tightly drawn—and there is not a proper mechanism in government to rein it in if necessary to ensure that we see the overall picture, and achieve a balance rather than a tight, focused view.

I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I do not think that the amendment would achieve the result that my new-found friend, the hon. Member for Bath, and I want. I suspect that we will get another of those statements from the Minister giving the overall picture. He will put his hand on his heart and say, ''Trust me. This is the way it will work.'' I look forward to what he has to say.

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

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. As a fellow Yorkshireman, I know that you will be very fair in your deliberations. We will expedite things as effectively as the Government have in previous sittings. If the hon. Member for Bath reflects on the official record, he will find that we were debating competition, not deregulation. What worried me was a gradual slide into some anti-competitive coalition between his party and the official Opposition. I was getting a bit worried about the political direction that he was taking, and I had to remind him that we are trying to bring more competition to the industry, which is why I resisted the amendment. My concern politically was that Opposition Members should not get into such a coalition. [Interruption.] They have obviously taken my advice.

I understand the concern about the OFT, but what hon. Members have said this morning is true. There is a realisation that we need the OFT, the BHB and the industry to come together and find a solution. All the feedback this week from the discussions with the BHB and the OFT was fruitful. The last board meeting of the BHB was moving in that direction in that it created an understanding between the industry and the sport so that a resolution to the rule 14 problem might be found. I am cautiously optimistic that we can resolve it.

As the hon. Member for Bath said, I have already taken the precautionary measure of extending the levy by one year because of the need to deal with fixtures, the business plan and so on. It was sensible to bring some certainty to the process. I made the point on Second Reading, and I make it clearly again today, that it is our intention to end the levy. Therefore, the Government cannot agree with amendment No. 48. The levy board should be abolished when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that the time is right, not subject to the agreement of a public body with no particular responsibility for it. That is what the amendment would require.

I understand the anxiety and uncertainty in relation to the OFT inquiry. For that reason, I extended the levy for one year. What has been happening this week will find a solution—I hope—to the dispute between the OFT and the racing industry. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for the Minister's response and, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, we will have an opportunity to continue the discussion in a few minutes when we debate subsequent amendments. One thing is absolutely clear: there is unanimity about the need for a solution concerning the desire to end the levy and the board, but we must do so only when a sustainable alternative has been agreed. I am delighted to hear further confirmation from the Minister of the Government's determination to play a role in helping to bring that into play.

I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment, not just because of the assurance given by the Minister, but because I happen to believe that there are better ways of achieving what I want. We may come to those when debating subsequent amendments.

I give the Minister notice that when we come to further discussion of the issue, I shall refer, as I have in previous discussions relating to the Bill, to the regulatory impact assessment. If it will help him to start doing his homework, he might want to look at pages 32 and 33, which touch closely on the issue. With those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ms Kali Mountford (Colne Valley, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in

clause 15, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

'(3A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless satisfied that arrangements are in place for—

( ) funding for the employment of veterinary surgeons at horseracing grounds;

( ) adequate funding for the care of retired race horses'.

I, too, am a Yorkshire MP and, as a Yorkshire person, a respecter of tradition and one who knows what side their bread is buttered on, so may I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley?

The horse racing industry cannot operate at all without dealing with the welfare of the horses. The industry has a better record than some sports that use animals. For example, it has a better record on horse welfare than greyhound racing has on the welfare of greyhounds. That said, the welfare of those animals derives from the contribution from the levy in two ways, which are indicated in the amendment. The first, obviously, concerns the tracks themselves and the payment of vets when they are attending horses. Horses are often injured during a race, or need assistance before it, so it is important that vets are present. Nobody would argue that they should not be.

Further to that, at the end of their career, horses are often valued by their owners and trainers and they go on to have very productive, and sometimes lucrative, lives after finishing racing. Nevertheless, that is not the case for all horses and about 4,000 per year have welfare concerns that are brought to the industry's attention. Of those, 300 need some charitable intervention, which is why the industry set up its own charity. Charities depend on the vagaries of the good will of the people giving donations, but one dependable part of that charity is the donation from the levy.

The Minister will notice that the amendment is probing. We need an assurance that that valuable part of the industry—the horses—will have the best care during their working lives and when their working lives have come to an end. I seek the Minister's assurance that some robust mechanism will be put in place post-levy to ensure that vets are present at the race course, that their fees will be covered and that the charitable contributions to the welfare of horses at the end of their racing lives will continue. Race horses cannot curl up on a couch like a greyhound, but there are plenty of things that retrained horses can do so that their lives can be extended comfortably and appropriately when they have earned such a lot for the industry during their working lives.

Mr Andy Reed (Loughborough, Labour/Co-operative)

I never want to repeat a speech that has been made by an hon. Friend, but I would like to reiterate the point that we seek clarification that there is a commitment to horses' welfare. A great deal of work is done and it is acknowledged that the contribution from the levy board, while minimal in terms of percentage of turnover, is significant to the amount that the charity raises.

It is necessary to understand that the vast majority of horses are treated excellently after their retirement from racing. However, the fact that the charity has been established and the acknowledgement that 300 or 400 horses a year require charitable intervention mean that it would be a mistake if the many positives that

will come out of the Bill do not include a statutory requirement that an amount of money such as that which comes from the levy should continue to be given. We seek the Minister's reassurance that, if not necessarily through the amendment then at least in other ways, that will continue.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

Naturally, I am immensely sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) are trying to achieve, because I have been involved with horses all my life and want them to be properly looked after. However, I am slightly curious about the words

''funding for the employment of veterinary surgeons at horseracing grounds'',

which appear in the first part of the amendment.

I have always travelled under the impression that a race meeting cannot be held unless there is a certified vet in attendance. Have the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Colne Valley introduced the amendment because there has been a failure to have vets in attendance? If so, that is most serious and I am certain that the racing bodies will want to know about it.

Mr Andy Reed (Loughborough, Labour/Co-operative)

My experience is that that is not the case. I understand that some payment for veterinary services at the course or race ground comes from the levy, so we seek an assurance on the continuation of that good practice. I do not think that we have that assurance in the Bill as it stands. All we are trying to do is ensure that the good practice continues. The hon. Gentleman is right that veterinary attendance at courses is vital and the race cannot go ahead unless vets are there. The issue is the funding for that, and I am sure that race course managers would be happy with the amendment on the basis that they will not pick up the tab themselves.

Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley and her seconder on moving the amendment because it is important to place it on the public record. Although I do not think that the Minister is likely to come up with a robust mechanism that is in accord with the amendment, I am sure that he can provide firm governmental intent on the public record to which we can refer at a later date.

As the hon. Lady said, this aspect of the levy gives financial support for the care and welfare of racehorses. She mentioned that about 4,000 horses leave the industry every year. That is an extraordinarily high number, although when one considers the number of meetings and horses that are involved, and the number of years that they can compete during their lifespan, it is perhaps not so surprising. About 300 horses every year need support. Of course, there is one horse missing from those figures—Shergar—and we still do not know what has happened to him.

Only a tiny percentage of the levy is used for such welfare, but it is a significant amount because its impact is so great. I hope that the Minister will provide some assurance of his intent to ensure that it continues. The money also helps the improvement of

breed support, which should not be forgotten. It is used not only to ensure that vets are in attendance at race meetings, but to advance and encourage veterinary science, which is of enormous benefit to all. Its overarching purpose is the improvement of horse racing, and I am sure that the industry would not wish to lose sight of that.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I wish to underline some of the points that have been made, and to express some personal views. I welcome the fact that the hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), both of whom I know well and for whom I have a great deal of respect, have tabled the amendment, as it is important to put such matters on the record.

As I made clear on Second Reading, I do not have the detailed knowledge of all aspects of racing that my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) have. However, I have some knowledge of racing, of the preparation of racehorses and of veterinary science, not least because my father, early in his career, taught at the Royal Veterinary College, and several family friends were and still are vets.

From my experience of visiting racecourses and, as I mentioned on Second Reading, of having an uncle who was an owner of point-to-point horses, I have found that the standards of care in racing are tremendously high. I welcome the statement from the hon. Members for Colne Valley and for Loughborough that the purpose of their amendment is to obtain on the record the confirmation that those high standards will continue.

I want to place on the record the fact that standards are taken very seriously by all whom I have met in racing. If any hon. Members want that point reinforced, they might be interested to read a superb book that I was lucky enough to receive as a Christmas present and read over the recess, which is the autobiography of Lord Oaksey—somebody who could properly be described as the doyen of racing journalism. It is called ''Mince Pie for Starters'', and a great deal of it demonstrates the care for the welfare of horses that not only he had, but everybody in racing had.

If the lessons that Lord Oaksey sets out are followed, we will see a continuation of the care of horses that, as he makes clear in his book, has been improving over the course of his life.

Ms Kali Mountford (Colne Valley, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman's statement about the current state of racing is absolutely right. Without going through my connections with racehorse owners, I would like to tell him of some cases of abuse of horses during training many years ago. Although those practices have been wiped out, I would not like to see a return to them. That is partly the purpose behind the amendment.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have already said that I understand that she and the hon. Member for Loughborough tabled the amendment to enable us to have this short debate. I simply wanted to place on record my own observations and links, which suggest to me, as the hon. Lady has just confirmed,

that standards are now very high. All of us who care about racing and horses want that to continue.

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

More right hon. and hon. Members have probably spoken on this amendment than on any other, which shows that we are a nation that loves its animals.

Amendment No. 54 prevents the Secretary of State from abolishing the levy board unless she is satisfied that arrangements are in place to fund vets at racecourses and to care for retired racehorses. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley that it is an important issue, as participation in the debate has shown, but the amendment would not affect the provisions in the Bill.

We have always made it clear that the important work done by the levy board will not be neglected when it is abolished. For that reason, clause 16(6) makes it clear that, when the levy board's assets are transferred, they will be used for their current statutory purposes. The BHB, to whom the bulk of the assets will be transferred, has already given us an undertaking that it will continue to fund public-interest areas such as veterinary research and education. It will also continue to provide funding to welfare projects such as Retraining of Racehorses, which have in the past received levy board grants.

Everybody acknowledges that the levy board has done an excellent job for 40 years. We have simply transferred into the Bill the statutory purposes referred to in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, so it does not need to be changed. I do not believe that either the Jockey Club or any future regulator of the sport would allow the well-being of racehorses, and therefore the future of the sport, to be jeopardised by inadequate veterinary provision at race meetings.

We have taken what is working well in the 1963 Act, with which I think everybody concurs, and put that into the Bill. With the assurances that the BHB has given us about the way in which those assets will be used, I have every confidence that the Bill takes full account of all the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley raises in her amendment. I therefore ask her to seek to withdraw it.

Ms Kali Mountford (Colne Valley, Labour)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for those assurances. As a fellow Yorkshire Member, I know that he is a man of his word and can be trusted. If he is satisfied that he has received the appropriate assurances from the industry that, under the new arrangements, horses will be protected, I have no misgivings and I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.