| Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
|
|
Mr. Paice: On the roof.
9.45 amMr. Page: 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 Column Number: 069 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. The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): 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. Column Number: 070 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. Foster: 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. Kali Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): I beg to move amendment No. 54, in
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless satisfied that arrangements are in place for— Column Number: 071 ( ) 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. Reed: 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 Column Number: 072 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.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 22 January 2004 |
