Clause 16 - Property of the Levy Board
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
10:00 am
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.