| Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
|
|
Mr. Foster: 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:
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. Hawkins: 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 Column Number: 077 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. Caborn: 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. Paice: Let me separate the two issues. I understand entirely what the Minister says about the future of the capital fund. Column Number: 078 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. Caborn: 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. Paice: 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. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 20, in
Amendment No. 18, in
'(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. Paice: 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 Column Number: 079 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.
10.30 amI 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 Column Number: 080 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.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 22 January 2004 |
