Clause 16 - Property of the Levy Board
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
10:00 am
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in
clause 16, page 10, line 29, after 'specified', insert 'assets,'.
Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 14, in
clause 16, page 10, line 40, after 'specify', insert 'assets,'.
Amendment No. 15, in
clause 16, page 11, line 1, after 'whom', insert 'assets,'.
Amendment No. 16, in
clause 16, page 11, line 9, after 'any', insert 'assets,'.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
This little group of amendments could cause immense ructions, but, on the other hand, the Minister could easily accept them, and we could then press on.
I tabled the amendments because I find it odd that the Bill refers repeatedly to the transfer of ''property, rights and liabilities'', but does not use the word ''assets''. In his remarks on the previous amendment the Minister referred to the transfer of assets. I think that most of us understand that we are talking about a transfer plan of everything to do with the levy board, including its assets. The asset that I am most concerned about is the capital fund, which currently stands at about £50 million. It can loosely be described as a revolving fund: it lends money to race courses for improvements, so there is a constant inflow and outflow of resources. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire said earlier, it is a huge contributor to the improvement of race courses. He referred to the capital sums granted to courses, which ranged from £100,000 for Perth, a remote but important race course, up to very large sums, as he said, for Sandown, Newbury and York, the famous race courses. That money is vital. The levy board has advanced more than £180 million in project loans since the inception of the capital fund 34 or 35 years ago, which has led to a huge improvement in race course facilities, and about £450 million has been committed for 2001–05. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with all of that and is as supportive of it as I am.
I am concerned, however, that the word ''assets'' does not appear in the Bill. As a layman—I am not a lawyer—I do not believe that the word ''property'' includes capital funds and assets. It might include physical assets, but I would not normally include cash in the bank or outstanding loans as property. Therefore, I seek to insert ''assets'' into the relevant parts of the Bill after ''property'', to make it absolutely clear that we are talking about, if may use the word, the totality of the levy board, and to ensure that all of it is transferred into racing.
I could be sceptical and say that it is conceivable that the word ''assets'' has intentionally not been used because the Treasury has its eyes on the capital fund and does not want to transfer it. I am sure that the Minister will reassure me that that is not the case, but I hope he will understand that there is a real concern that, if ''assets'' is not in the Bill, although he used it in his earlier remarks, the clause and transfer plan are not as inclusive as we want them to be.
Clearly the Horseracing Forensic Laboratory and the National Stud come under the heading of property and should be transferred. As I said on Second Reading, both these important institutions are in my constituency. The Government have already begun
discussions about their future, but, as I understand it, no real discussions have taken place about the future of the capital fund. I know that the Racecourse Association does not want it to be transferred to the BHB, but would prefer it to be set up as a free-standing charitable trust to continue the good work of the National Stud over 35-odd years. I hope that the capital fund will be part of the transfer plan, but I should be interested if the Minister would say what the Government's thoughts are about its future, as the thought process on many other aspects is already well advanced.
I strongly believe that the word ''assets'' should be in the Bill. The Minister has used the word, and I cannot understand what objection he can have to including it after the word ''property''. I cannot believe that it detracts from the Bill. The Minister may try to convince me that legally it is not necessary, but it would still be helpful and comprehensive if it were in the Bill and I hope that he will agree to include it.
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire on using the amendment as an opportunity to raise the importance of the capital fund. He wishes to add a word to the clause did not concern him earlier because the same phraseology is used in clause 2 about the transfer of the Tote. ''Assets'' is not mentioned there, but perhaps there is a difference between the two and a reason why it should be added to clause 16 and not to clause 2. Be that as it may, it is important to obtain some comments from the Government about the capital fund.
Earlier, I said that until recently we all knew the new arrangements. They were not in the Bill but we knew the intention. As discussed, the intervention of the OFT has made that extremely difficult. It is worth remembering that in the previous arrangements the intention clearly was to follow the line of argument advanced by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. If we consider the report on future funding produced in October 2000 by the BHB, along with its recommendations for the basis of the hoped-for new deal to replace the levy, it said:
''The Capital Fund, subject to Government confirmation, will be transferred to BHB. BHB will then transfer it to a Trust for the duration of the agreement between the BHB and RCA to be administered by three Trustees. The Fund will be set initially at £50 million and be available to racecourses and other organisations which are currently HBLB beneficiaries for capital improvements.''
It is clear that the original intention was a transfer to the BHB, and that by working with others it would have established a trust with several benefits, not least that it would have been a tax-efficient operation.
In any new plan that is developed for the replacement of the levy, it is important to hear from the Minister whether he envisages the arrangement recommended by the BHB, which is fairly widely accepted and close to the views expressed by the Racecourse Association, being in the scheme.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
In the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, he said that, although he was not a lawyer, he would prefer the phraseology to be more complete. From my background as a lawyer, considering how commercial
agreements are interpreted, although commercial agreements are, of course, rather different from Acts of Parliament, I recall that the guiding principle on which commercial lawyers are always trained is to ensure that any phraseology is as complete as possible for the avoidance of doubt.
In about 12 years in the House of Commons, I have tended to come to the same conclusion about legislation. Since the leading case of Pepper v. Hart, which set out that Ministers' comments at the Dispatch Box can be used as a guide to the intentions of Government and Parliament, it has become particularly important to press Ministers, even if they are not prepared to amend a Bill, at least to clarify meaning.
It would be helpful if ''assets'' were added to ''property'' in the relevant places described in the amendment. As a lawyer, I think that it adds something to the general term ''property''. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire is right, and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or at least make it clear that the Treasury does not have some hidden agenda and that all the assets, not merely a limited category of property, will be transferred.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I must admit that I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. When I met my officials last night, I asked for an interpretation and whether assets were included. We had the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' on the table. They reassured me that the legal interpretation of ''property, rights and liabilities'' included assets.
As I said, I have sympathy with the amendment, but the lawyers assure me that the word ''asset'' does not need to be included in the clause because it is already incorporated under property, rights and liabilities.
On the capital fund, yes, the BHB has given us assurances. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the amount is about £50 million. It has broadly—not wholly—been used for interest-free loans for the development and upgrading of race courses. There has been flexibility even under the levy board. The fund was not used solely for interest-free loans. Hon. Members who were close to the discussions with the OFT and the industry will know that there are possibilities for restructuring the governance of the sport and its commercial activities. It would not be very wise to accept this amendment, which would tie hands and leave no flexibility for redefining the governance and funding of the sport. People who are close to the negotiations know that they are ongoing.
I give clear assurance that assets are incorporated in the wording, and my officials have reassured me that when the capital fund is handed over to the BHB it will broadly be used as it is at present. The amendment would tie that down such that flexibility would be difficult.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Let me separate the two issues. I understand entirely what the Minister says about the future of the capital fund.
I return to the word ''assets''? I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman questioning last night the use of the word ''property''. When his lawyers advised him that it was not necessary, did they come up with any reasons why it would not be helpful to include it in the Bill? Would there be anything wrong with including it? In other words, would he humour me by accepting the amendment? Unless a lawyer can produce a reason why not, I cannot see why the wording should not be more explanatory, even if we accept the advice about the definition of property.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
Too many words. [Laughter.] That is the advice.
As the hon. Gentleman well knows—he is an old hand at this game—we can go on expanding, but there must be a final position. My officials and I had an interesting debate last night. In fact, we had three dictionaries out and were cross-referencing property to assets and assets to property. It was a good discussion. The hon. Gentleman wants reassurance about the assets, and I am convinced that they are included. Nothing detracts from the capital fund, as an asset, going to the BHB. That is absolutely clear and covered by the wording.
We could continue writing more and more words into the proposed legislation. That would make more and more money for lawyers such as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Let us keep the legislation short, precise and focused. My lawyers assure me that the wording deals with all the concerns that have been expressed this morning. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Even though the Minister did not actually put his hand on his heart, it was there metaphorically. I am reasonably reassured by what he said, and particularly by the fact that he made a challenge and has been reassured. Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said in relation to Pepper v. Hart, it is important that the Minister has stated things clearly on the record. In the light of that, I am reasonably persuaded that the financial holdings of the levy board, and in particular the capital fund, will be part of the property that will be part of the transfer plan. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 19, in
clause 16, page 10, line 36, leave out from 'modification' to end of line 37.
Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 20, in
clause 16, page 11, line 7, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment No. 18, in
clause 16, page 11, line 14, at end insert—
'(6A) Any transfer scheme made or approved by the Secretary of State under subsections (2) or (4) shall be subject to approval by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
This is the group of amendments that I referred to in an earlier discussion. It represents the fall-back position. Like everyone else, I do not know the outcome of the OFT matter, or the European
Court of Justice case, which we have not really referred to this morning. Those two issues are overhanging the racing industry. As far as the OFT is concerned, I share the Minister's optimism that a solution can be found, and I hope that it will be. Nevertheless, that solution has not been found yet. Therefore the matter hangs over the industry. Should a solution not be found, and should the OFT decide, despite everybody's efforts, to stand by its rule 14 notice published last April, the consequences for the racing industry could be horrendous. There would also be consequences for the racegoer and for the punter, although there are those who would disagree with that. The situation would certainly be serious.
I know that I raised similar issues in relation to part 1when I discussed the need to come back to the House of Commons with an affirmative resolution before the Tote was disposed of. It is right for the transfer plan to come back to the House for approval, which is the gist of the amendments. It is essential that the House be given a chance to reflect on the impact of the OFT conclusions, when they have been made, and on the European Court judgment about the related issue of concern to the bookmakers. We need that opportunity to reflect.
We need also to consider what exactly the Minister proposes to do in the transfer plan. I am reasonably relaxed and comfortable about the structure as laid out. As he has already implied, he has picked up large chunks of the 1963 Act and reiterated them in the Bill. He talked about what the property, the rights and the liabilities of the levy board should be used for. Clause 16(6) is quite comprehensible, although I have an amendment relating to it. I also understand and accept what he said in his last contribution about where he wants all the things to go.
I return, however, to the point that I have made over and over again, as have the hon. Member for Bath and others. We cannot be certain about what will happen, partly because of the OFT and the European Court, but partly because of a possible change in Ministers, or a possible change of heart by the Treasury, which will have huge influence over the transfer plan and will doubtless have to approve it before the Secretary of State can. It is right that the House of Commons should be allowed to make the final decision, which is why I tabled the amendment that would allow for affirmative resolution.
I do not doubt the integrity of the Minister or the Secretary of State, or the intention to do as the Government have repeatedly said—make the transfers, set up the forensic laboratory under the BHB, set up the National Stud as a charitable trust and transfer the capital fund, as the Minister has said. However, I will never be entirely satisfied until I know that those things have happened, which is why I would prefer the Government to allow the House to approve the final transfer plan.
The amendment is intended to ensure that the transfer scheme, as drawn up by the industry and the
Government, meets the desire universally shared in the House as to what should happen to the property assets, rights and liabilities of the levy board.
I hope that the Minister understands the intention behind the amendment. I am sure that he will want to resist it because, as I said in an earlier debate, Ministers always do. It is the right way forward, however, bearing in mind the huge uncertainty in the racing industry and the desire of so many Members from all parties to ensure that the future of racing in the absence of a levy board is as strong, if not stronger, than under the present arrangements. It is only right and proper that the genuine concern and interest of Members should be reflected by allowing the House to approve the transfer plan. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
Now that my nerve is broken, it will be only a few seconds before I conclude my remarks. I would like to support the thrust of what my hon. Friend has put forward so eloquently. The Committee is fully aware of the importance of the levy board, and I suppose that I should declare an interest at this stage. As we know, the levy board earmarks a considerable sum for prizes for successful race horses. I travel in the hope of attaining some of that money at some point, but I have to say that my success has not been of any notable consequence. Knowing the paranoia of the House on matters relating to the declaration of interest, I am only too willing to mention that.
I am interested to find that the ''Concise Oxford English Dictionary'' is now written into law as the determinant of parliamentary legislation. I wonder whether the law may be challenged in the courts if that was relied on too strongly, but perhaps the Minister will achieve some status in the more arcane records of parliamentary milestones. In fact, he may have achieved such a milestone in the clause.
I am sorry to tell the Minister that I do not have his confidence in the OFT. I have already commented that its remit is very narrowly drawn and that Ministers do not have the ability, if it is necessary, to rein it in. However, I share his view and hope that all the parties involved will reach an amicable agreement so that racing can get on with worrying about how it will develop and promote the sport, rather than being held back in interminable discussions on how to reach a solution.
In supporting what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, I have a question to put: if an affirmative resolution is agreed to make a decision in the House on a scheme, could that resolution overturn an OFT direction? I sincerely hope that the House has supremacy in the matter. If it does not, I would have to say to my hon. Friend that his amendment is not worth the paper it is written on. If the House has that supremacy, I hope that the Minister agrees to the amendment so that the House can decide on how racing should progress.
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire for the clear reasons that he has given. Many of us have said that we support the Government's intention to abolish the levy and the
board. We believe that that is the right way to go, but we are anxious to know what is going to replace them and anxious to be confident that there will be a secure and sustainable source of funding for horse racing.
The sums indicate how important the issue is. The 2002–03 levy will bring horse racing about £72 million. However, it is accepted by many people that were the original proposals—now in doubt because of OFT rule 14—to have been implemented, the sums may have been significantly greater. Part of the proposed package was to discuss how the additional sums might be used, yet all that has been thrown into doubt even though it is important and we do not know how the matter will be resolved.
We heard from the Minister that we should not, at this stage, tie down the details of what will happen to the capital fund of £50 million. However, not tying people's hands means things are not clear. All that indicates great uncertainty, so it makes sense to have some mechanism by which Parliament, which vested powers in the Secretary of State to determine the levy, can have a say in determining and agreeing the alternative to it.
There is a great deal of uncertainty, one area of which I draw to the Minister's attention because I promised that I would refer to it. Earlier, we deliberated on the helpfulness or otherwise of the regulatory impact assessment provided by the Government. I note from the very helpful—in fact, brilliant—document produced by the Library that it is extremely generous to the Government in at least one respect. On page 26, under the heading ''Benefits of abolishing the Levy Board: the Government case'', the document says:
''Once again, the regulatory impact assessment accompanying the new Bill has a useful summary of the case for the Government's preferred option''.
I had a look at that useful summary of the Government's case. It sets out the benefits and costs of both the status quo and abolition. I worked on the assumption that if one subtracted the costs from the benefits, a net value would be obtained for both. I say to the Minister that the very helpful document in which he adds up the sums demonstrates that there is far more money to be made and that we would benefit from retaining the status quo. I am not always convinced, and on this occasion I am not choosing bits selectively. I am looking, in the current jargon, at the totality of the table provided. Unlike the Library, whose document is otherwise excellent, I did not find that a particularly useful summary of the Government's case. I hope that the Minister gives us the benefit of his thinking on that aspect of the regulatory impact assessment.
On a much more serious point, there is still a great deal of uncertainty, as acknowledged by the Minister and the Government. We need to have some method by which we can have parliamentary agreement to a new scheme as and when it is developed, and as soon as possible, because that would benefit the industry. With the OFT and European Court issues still in the wings and there still being a great deal of uncertainty, we need a clear way forward. The amendment provides it.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
On the general question, if we waited for total stability before doing anything in the industry, we would never do anything. I did not know much about horse racing when I came into the job, and I probably do not now, but if I have ever seen an industry create problems for itself, this is an absolutely classic example.
Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
I am sorry the Minister says he knew little about horse racing when he came to the job. He will recall that in the interview he gave on taking up the job he said:
''I know nothing about horse racing''.
He did not say that he knew a little.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I go round the track and I have been to the odd race meeting, but I shall leave that on one side. I reiterate that if we waited for the industry to have a period of stability during which legislation could be introduced with absolute certainty-—that is what everyone wants—the status quo would remain for ever more because nothing would happen. That is the background against which the drafting of the Bill should provide reassurance. Due to the turbulence that always seems to exist in the industry, we are trying to draft the provision in a way that will bring certainty to the transfer of assets. Indeed, the clause states at subsection (6):
''The Secretary of State shall not make or approve a transfer scheme under this section unless satisfied that any property or rights transferred will be used or exercised''
for the purposes laid down.
Let us take a worst-case scenario of no BHB, although I cannot imagine that. There would be a transfer and the way it would be done is clearly laid down in subsection (6). The amendment is superfluous and it would add nothing.
The Secretary of State would act on the advice of the levy board and it would be the board's duty to prepare the scheme of transfer as laid down in subsection (6). There is reassurance that, whatever body is involved in the transfer, there will be a duty to carry that out. The advice will be prepared professionally by the levy board, and all those reassurances should be there. That is our intention—I hope that all of it will be transferred to the governing body, the BHB—and we want it to be the reality. If that turns out not to be the case, I believe that all the safeguards that hon. Members are asking for exist.
In reply to the hon. Member for Bath, as I said earlier, the regulatory impact is but one matter to be considered when making a judgment. I hope that from time to time it can inform debate, but no more and no less than that.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I hear what the Minister is saying, but I am not entirely sure that it fits with the explanatory notes that the Government circulated with the Bill.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I read from the Bill.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I know that the Bill is more important than the explanatory notes and even the ''Oxford English Dictionary''. The explanatory notes are clear at paragraph 69:
''Subsection (4) gives the Secretary of State the power to make a transfer scheme herself if the Board fails to comply with a direction to make a scheme or''—
this is the important bit—
''she decides not to approve a scheme submitted by the Levy Board.''
That gives her absolute power, and she can make her own scheme if she does not like what the levy board submits. That is the critical point, but I do not think that the Minister's comments reflected the fact that things do not have to be done with the approval of the industry or the board.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
I did not say that. I said that advice would be given and that the levy board would have a duty to prepare the scheme, with advice going to the Secretary of State. That advice would be taken in conjunction with what the Bill states at subsection (6):
''The Secretary of State shall not make or approve a transfer scheme under this section unless satisfied that any property or rights transferred will be used or exercised for the purpose of''
the activities listed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). That is the duty on the Secretary of State. Those reassurances exist, and if we reflect on the debate they should satisfy all the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I stated in my opening remarks that I welcomed subsection (6), which is a direct lift from the 1963 Act. It is important that the Secretary of State cannot make a transfer scheme unless satisfied that those criteria are met. The point that I was making before the Minister intervened is that at the end of the day she is not forced to take the advice of the industry—she can make any transfer scheme she wants, subject to the requirements of subsection (6).
I am therefore disappointed that the Minister believes that it is not necessary for Members of this House to have any more say in the matter. In this instance, it would have been a reasonable concession from the Government to allow the House to approve the final transfer scheme, if for no other reason than that there are so many hon. Members who are interested in, and concerned about, this issue, although hon. Members speaking to this group of amendments have also described other valid reasons. But that is not the position that the Minister is prepared to adopt, so we will not be able to make progress at this stage. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 16, page 11, line 12, after first 'veterinary', insert 'or equine'.
Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 22, in
clause 16, page 11, line 14, after 'improvement', insert 'or integrity'.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The Minister needs to get his dictionary out again here, because these are exploratory amendments. I fully recognise that the clause comes from the 1963 Act, and that as the levy board has
developed since then we must assume that the its activities continue to be compliant with the 1963 Act.
I tabled these two amendments—in fact there is a third one that I should have tabled but did not, but I shall mention the issue—because I want to challenge the Minister to ensure that current practice, and what might be done in the future in close connection with that, would remain within these criteria. I sought to insert the word ''equine'' after the word ''veterinary'' simply because, as a layman, I am not absolutely certain how far the term ''veterinary science'' goes in relation to the work that is currently being done.
Let me just explain to the Committee a couple of points. First, the Equine Fertility Unit in my constituency is significantly funded by the levy board and does a vast amount of research into horse reproduction. The Minister may be convinced that this is veterinary work as opposed to research, but it is an issue that needs to be clarified. There is also the issue of the work done by the Horse Racing Forensic Laboratory. I was interested to see in paragraph 48 on page 32 of the now oft-mentioned regulatory impact assessment that there is a distinction between ''veterinary'' and ''forensic'' work. It refers to levels of expenditure on integrity services including, in brackets, ''forensic technology'', and then refers separately to ''veterinary sciences''. The work of the Horse Racing Forensic Laboratory is central to the integrity of horse racing, as it concerns drug testing and ensuring that horses are—if I may use the expression—running cleanly. I am not entirely convinced that that is covered by the word ''veterinary'', and that is why I sought to introduce the word ''equine'' to make sure that all forms of equine science are covered, including those that some might not accept as directly veterinary science. It is almost a tautology, but it is a point that needs to be clarified.
I should have sought to insert the word ''equine'' between ''veterinary'' and ''education'' as well. I refer again to the work of the National Stud, one of the country's leading institutions in providing training and management development in equine activity and looking after horses—the sort of issues to which the hon. Member for Colne Valley referred earlier. I am not sure that equine education is the same as veterinary education. Although I have not tabled the amendment, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that educating people to look after and handle horses is covered by the terminology.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to add ''integrity'' after ''improvement''. It goes back to the work of the Horse Racing Forensic Laboratory, which is the world leader in developing the means of ensuring the integrity of racing and that, as with other sports in which drugs may be involved, everything is done fairly. One might argue that it is part of the improvement of horse racing, but I am not convinced. It would be helpful if the Bill made it clear that the integrity of horse racing forms part of the remit of the transfer scheme.
I accept that the levy board is already attending to such matters. One could argue that the board must be covered by those expressions because it will operate under this legislation. However, it is an opportunity to
review the terminology and to ensure that we have got it right, bearing in mind that we have had 35 years of development since the 1963 Act. The work of the levy board and of the various institutions to which I have referred has moved ahead considerably, and I would hate to think that the excellent work that they do could founder because, at some later stage, we find that the legislative definitions have not kept up with their work.
I seek the opportunity to ensure that the terminology is right not only for the present, but for what we foresee to be the development of the services provided through the levy board. I hope that the Minister understands my concerns and will at least get his dictionary out when he responds.
Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)
Again, we had a very good discussion around my table last night about the words that should be included. The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that for the past 40 years the 1963 Act has worked pretty effectively, and that therefore so have we. It is well tried and tested and that is why we have lifted from the Act large chunks of the provisions that we are discussing and placed them in the Bill. The track record demonstrates that the levy board has acted responsibly and that the funding has been there. All the hon. Gentleman's points have been covered in the past 40 years.
On amendment No. 21, a large part of what might be termed equine science would be subsumed within veterinary science; that which is not would fall under the third category, which is the improvement of horse racing, at least to the extent that is relevant to the issues covered by the Bill.
On amendment No. 22, money spent on the integrity of horse racing would also fall under the category of improvement of horse racing in general. The levy board provided funds in the past to the vital areas, and therefore nothing in the Bill would prevent the future owners of the board's assets from doing likewise.
Both amendments are superfluous. The track record of the past 40 years and the fact that we have lifted the clause from the 1963 Act should both provide reassurance. It is better for continuity and a smooth transition from the current arrangements to the new ones if those who have understood and worked with them for the past 40 years continue to do so. There will then be no misunderstanding, and one would hope that it would be business as usual.
I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Certainly we all want business as usual and we want those activities to continue.
I do not dissent from what the Minister has said. I simply wanted to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to update the language of the legislation to ensure that we are properly covered. I think that some of us may have had a more enjoyable evening than the Minister last night, if he spent all evening poring over the dictionary. However, if he is reassured that the wording covers not only what has been done but current activities, I accept what he says. As I have said, the Committee gives us an opportunity to improve
legislation as well as to change it, and legislation that has been in place for 40 years does not necessarily meet today's needs. However, the Minister has assured me that the words are not necessary, so for that reason, if for no other, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.