Clause 15 - Abolition of levy
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
9:30 am
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.