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