House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Apr 1993

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments : No. 12, in page 18, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert--

(6) The total value of the tickets or chances sold in any one such lottery shall not exceed one quarter of the total value of tickets or chances which may be sold in all such lotteries held in any one year and promoted on behalf of the same society or by the same local authority.'.

No. 4, in page 18, line 13, leave out £500,000' and insert £1 million.'.

12.30 am

Mr. Pendry : The purpose of the amendment is to allow societies to offer larger, more attractive top prizes. That should assist small lotteries to survive the competition from the national lottery. Research suggests that the lottery could have dramatic effect on charitable income from small lotteries, as has already been pointed out. Charities in Ireland experienced a 60 per cent. drop in their small lottery income since the creation of the state lottery in 1987 and, according to that oft-quoted Guardian-GAH group report, the drop in small lottery income in the United Kingdom as a result of the national lottery could be as great as 50 per cent.

As we know, the Government introduced amendments to the Bill in Committee which increased the limit of the size of the single lottery from £250,000 to £500,000 and changed the maximum prize limit from £25,000 to 10 per cent. of potential ticket sales, whichever is the greater. While those changes were welcome, as was said in Committee, many charities are still doubtful about whether they will be sufficient to maintain charitable incomes for small lotteries. The Opposition believe that the Government should do more to ensure that charitable lotteries are strong enough to survive the competition from big prize national lotteries. I am sure that every hon. Member has heard it argued that the size of the top prize in the national lottery will be the crucial factor determining sales. Surely the same argument holds for the smaller lotteries run by charities, sports clubs and community groups. We believe that the maximum top prize in a society lottery should be increased from £25,000 or 10 per cent. to £25,000 or 20 per cent. of the potential ticket sales. As the Bill is drafted, that would mean a top prize of £50,000 in a society lottery.

We also support the amendment proposing that the size of a single lottery should be increase to £1.25 million. The amendment would enable charities and other societies to reach the £5 million turnover proposed in the Bill by running four rather than 10 lotteries. If the amendment were accepted, it would mean that charities would incur lower administrative costs in reaching the total turnover limit. More small lottery proceeds would be available for charity and community use.

Column 1097

In debate on both the issue of single lottery size and the maximum prize level, the Minister said that the Government were not prepared to allow small lotteries that would compete with, and poach sales from, the national lottery. However, a charity lottery with a turnover of £1.25 million and 20 per cent. maximum size could hardly be thought to compete with a national lottery with jackpots that could reach, with the roll-over of three games, something like £44 million at one estimate.

The purpose of the amendment is to make charitable and other society lotteries more attractive and more likely to survive and prosper, given competition from a heavily promoted multi-million pound prize lottery. We hope that the Government will be prepared to consider again both the limit and the size of the single lottery, and the maximum prize in any society lottery.

Mr. Alan Howarth : In deference to the lateness of the hour, I shall be as brief as I can. The House will be relieved to know that this is the last time that I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I want to speak to amendment No. 12, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I have considerable sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). My amendment is an alternative means of achieving essentially the same objective.

I appreciate that the Government have already amended clause 46, and the movement that they have allowed is welcome. The annual limit of £5 million is fair and sensible and I welcome the spirit of the amendment that the Government have already made. However, there seems to be a basic inconsistency in Government thinking on the issue. The Bill allows a society to run lotteries with proceeds of up to £5 million per annum, but limits the size of each lottery to make it impossible, in practical terms, to reach the new limit, because each society would have to run at least 10 lotteries a year.

My hon. Friend the Minister said on a previous occasion that some societies do run instant lotteries 10 times a year. That is possible in the case of draw-type lotteries, which are suitable for football and supporters' clubs that meet regularly--but it is not realistic for national charities whose members and supporters are widely dispersed throughout the country. In practical terms, it is impossible for them to run more than four or five modern, instant lotteries a year on a national scale.

A period of 12 to 15 weeks is needed for each game to be produced, distributed, sold and recovered. Tickets and posters must be designed and distributed to thousands of retail outlets, a publicity campaign organised, tickets sold, and money gathered in. The draw must then be held, and perhaps an event organised in that connection.

Ten weeks is the very least in which that cycle of activity can be completed. I prefer my amendment to amendment No. 4 because it would still require societies to run instant draws every 10 weeks and that is too frequent. More time should be allowed. I note that the Government do not intend to restrict the national lottery's own instant lotteries in the same way.

My hon. Friend the Minister also suggested that societies and charities could run concurrent lotteries, but that is not an attractive solution. It would require a double set of printing, posters, administration, accounting and advertising. That would be expensive and confusing for charities and for the Gaming Board. Also, I am advised

Column 1098

that it would contravene the current regulations governing lotteries and would require the amendment of section 10 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. It seems illogical to allow two lotteries of £500,000 and not one of £1 million.

Charities depend on the efforts of their voluntary workers and everyone wants them to keep their administrative costs down. It is not realistic on either count to ask charities to organise 10 lotteries a year or to run two or three concurrently.

Amendment No. 12 would raise the limit on the turnover for any individual lottery to £1.25 million, with a corresponding top prize limit of £125,000. My hon. Friend the Minister warned of the danger of creating mini national lotteries, but it should be borne in mind that a charity lottery would be able to offer a prize of that size only four or five times a year, at most. A prize of £125,000 would not compete in any real way with the national lottery's weekly prize of millions, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde suggested. Many charities want to continue to raise their own funds rather than rely on the national lottery. It seems unfair to restrict their initiative, particularly if the Government give them a total annual limit of £5 million which it is impossible to realise in practice. Charities should be allowed to run their lotteries on a cost-effective basis and to offer attractive prizes.

My hon. Friend the Minister may argue that the arrangements can be altered by statutory instrument, but it is important not to start off on the wrong footing. I fear that charity lotteries would wither on the basis that my hon. Friend proposes. A prize of £500,000 only would be perceived by the public as just too unattractive compared with national lottery prizes. Irremediable damage would be done before the regulations were altered and charity lotteries would be virtually destroyed--as in Ireland, where, as was mentioned earlier, small charity lottery income has collapsed 60 per cent. If that were replicated in Britain, charity income from small lotteries would fall from the present level of £240 million to less than £100 million, which would be most serious. I ask my hon. Friend to address that point.

Lady Olga Maitland : I support amendment No. 12, which was spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). It reflects my concern about how small charities and voluntary organisations that run their own lotteries can survive the anticipated enormous success of the national lottery. Scratch card lottery tickets are sold by 200 charities and bring in an estimated income of about £40 million a year. They are unlikely to be able to raise similar sums of money if the Bill as it stands becomes law. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to give serious consideration to the amendment, particularly bearing in mind that the Government will be able to be generous after the undoubted success of the national lottery. I ask the Government to support what I call the little fella, the smaller charities, and allow them to raise the full sum to which they are entitled. The means for doing so has not been provided for in the Bill.

Mr. Alton : I wish to associate amendment No. 4--in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)-- with amendment No. 12, spoken to by the hon. Member for

Column 1099

Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), and amendment No. 196, which was moved by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). If any one of the amendments were accepted, the Bill would be improved and would go some way towards meeting the concerns which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady O.Maitland) raised this evening, but which she more appropriately raised in Committee, where she explored the issues raised in these amendments rather than scratch cards, with which we dealt earlier this evening.

The amount of money that can be given in lottery prizes by charities, voluntary organisations, football clubs and others is an important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who has been here for most of today's debate, has made

representations to me about the football clubs in her constituency. Recently, I met Liverpool football club representatives, and I know that many other voluntary organisations and charities are anxious about the amount of prize money that they will be able to give. Their concern is that, if they are competing with a lottery that is handing out huge sums of money, they will look like very poor relations. The arguments have been well put. Whichever of the amendments the Minister could find it in his heart to accept would improve the Bill. Even if he is unable to accept any of them tonight, I hope that he will continue to bend his mind to the issue and accept an amendment in the other place.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : As is clear from all the speeches, these amendments seek to increase still further the limit on the proceeds and prizes from a single lottery. We amended the Bill in Committee to increase the limit on proceeds from £250,000 to £500,000 and the limit on prizes from £25,000 to the greater of £25,000 or 10 per cent. of the proceeds.

Amendment No. 4, spoken to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), seeks to double the proceeds limit to £1 million. Amendment No. 12, spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on- Avon (Mr. Howarth), is even more ambitious, for it would provide, in effect, a limit of £1.25 million. Amendment No.196, moved by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), would double the prize limit, so that the promoter of a £1.25 million lottery could offer a top prize of £250,000.

It is a matter of judgment as to where the line between small and medium- sized lotteries, as provided for in the 1976 Act and the national lottery, is drawn. The Government's view, however, is that lotteries of the scale envisaged by the amendments overstep sensible bounds. We have drawn the line at £500,000 for proceeds and £50,000 for prizes. I accept that it is possible for others to take a different view, but what I do not accept is that the levels that we have provided for put small lotteries at risk. Although I know that some of the lotteries that describe themselves as small would like higher limits, most are pleased about the changes that we have incorporated in the Bill.

It is beyond doubt that the Government's new limits represent a substantial increase on those currently in operation--£180,000 for proceeds and £12,000 for prizes. They will greatly enhance the appeal of such lotteries.

I return now to what the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, having experienced such debates many times before.

Column 1100

It would be sensible at the very least for societies to become accustomed to the new limits before we contemplate further increases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, we can keep all the limits under review and we shall do so. If further changes appear desirable in the future, they may be made by statutory instrument. We would not need primary legislation.

I advise the House to accept the substantial increases and to leave matters there for the present.

12.45 am

Mr. Pendry : I expected that reply from the Minister, and I am sure that other hon. Members also expected it. As long as the Minister is in charge, I am happy that he will consider the issue

sympathetically. I know that he will not be in his post for too long because we shall be on that side of the House. However, as long as he is in charge, I am sure that he will keep the matter in mind. With those serious remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I beg to move amendment No. 167, in page 18, line 28, at end insert--

(5A) In subsection (11) (not more than half of a lottery's proceeds may be appropriated for the provision of prizes) for "one half" there shall be substituted "50 per cent.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 168, 169, 172 and 191. Mr. Lloyd : Government amendment No. 169 is the cornerstone of this group of amendments. It would enable the Secretary of State to vary the percentages specified in section 11 of the 1976 Act. The other four amendments make consequential drafting charges.

We have received many representations from football clubs, rugby clubs and others--probably even from rugby league clubs--about lottery expenses. At present, the 1976 Act provides that no more than 25 per cent. of the proceeds of a lottery may be appropriated on account of expenses. This will be of particular interest to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). It has been argued that that limit is unreasonably low. Although many promoters of society lotteries are able to operate comfortably within the 25 per cent. limit, we accept that many others--especially those promoting smaller lotteries--find it difficult to do so. In response to representations, we amended the Bill in Committee to raise the expense limit to 30 per cent.

The Lotteries Council, of which the right hon. Member for Salford, East is president, suggested that even that higher figure is insufficient, and the council has argued for a 35 per cent. limit. I am not convinced that a limit above 30 per cent. is necessary or desirable as it would whittle away the amount of a lottery's proceeds which went to good causes. I now repeat what I have said when speaking to a number of other amendments because we are moving into uncharted territory. We believe that it would be sensible to be in a position to alter the 30 per cent. limit without recourse to primary legislation if there was a strong case for a further increase in future.

The amendment would also make it possible to vary by order the percentage limit on the size of the top prize in a lottery and on the amount of the proceeds of a lottery which may be used for the provision of prizes. I stress that

Column 1101

we have no plans at present to vary any of the percentages, but the amendment would ensure that we could act reasonably quickly if circumstances changed or if experience suggested that we had not judged one of the limits correctly.

The changes do not mean that we have got it wrong. Experience may suggest that the limits should be altered, and I think that all hon. Members want us to get it right as soon as possible, so it is sensible to have powers available so that we can move by regulation instead of having to find time for primary legislation, which it is often difficult to do.

Mr. Orme : The issue of donated expenses still remains a problem for small organisations. Many such organisations share offices with their lottery companies, and often have overlapping duties, making it difficult for them to determine exactly what constitutes a beneficiary donating expense. That point has been made to me and to many hon. Members by small organisations that fear that the provision could be their Achilles heel.

The Minister has already said that he is prepared to consider the matter again. Will he have one more look at it before the measure goes to the Lords, where it may be discussed further? I have other representations to put to him, and all I ask is that he keeps an open mind for the moment.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : It may be helpful if I say a couple of sentences in response. I do not expect to change the rules because I think that they are adequate and will not be onerous. Expenses incurred solely or primarily to enable the lottery to function, such as the costs of printing tickets and of advertising, must, of course, be counted as the expenses of the lottery, but the definition will not include the use of office space belonging to the club or society if it has not been acquired especially to house the lottery team. That is the kind of principle on which the Gaming Board will work.

I understand, however, that there is considerable worry about the exact side of the balance sheet on which certain expenses will appear, so I have asked the Gaming Board to give societies guidance so that they will know what position they will be in before they make the decisions that might bring them one side, rather than the other, of the 30 per cent. limit.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48

Powers of the Secretary of State to vary monetary limits and to prescribe or vary fees

Amendments made : No. 168, in page 19, line 24, leave out monetary limit' and insert sum specified'.

No. 169, in page 19, leave out line 25 and insert--

(3) For subsection (1)(b) there shall be substituted-- "(b) vary any sum or percentage specified in section 11 above ;".'.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 19, line 26, after for " ' insert under'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 171.

Mr. Lloyd : The amendments ensure that smaller lotteries, probably those that operate a series of single

Column 1102

lotteries with a turnover of less than £10,000, that are registered with the Gaming Board may pay an annual fee rather than a fee per lottery, as happens now. That will help to keep down the size of the total fees that they pay. I hope that, in conjunction with my acceptance of amendment No. 97, the amendments will meet with the approval of those who have the interests of small lotteries at heart, because it will improve the position of the organisations that run them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made : No. 171, in page 19, line 27, after substituted " ' insert , or provide that no fees are payable, under'. No. 172, in page 19, line 31, leave out monetary limit' and insert sum specified'.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]

Clause 50

Removal of prohibition on the use of premises for the delivery of football pools coupons and stakes

Mr. Pendry : I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 20, line 32, leave out from first competition' to end of line 36 and insert , in relation to a registered pool promoter, means a competition which is of the same kind as or is broadly similar to a competition held by him before the passing of this Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 173 and 174.

Mr. Pendry : It would be churlish of me not to recognise that the Government have come a long way in accommodating the concerns about the sale of pools coupons in shops. Although we fully support the spirit of clause 50 as amended in Committee, we have several concerns about its definition of a qualifying competition, especially the definition in new subsection (4D) (a) of section 1 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 :

"a competition for prizes for making forecasts as to association football games played on a Saturday".

We realise that the Government's new amendments Nos. 173 and 174 make that definition a little broader, so that instead of being limited to football matches played on a Saturday, it will include games played on Sundays and bank holidays. That is a good step forward, but in our view it does not go far enough. Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 do not solve the problem of pools competitions based on events other than football matches, such as major horse races and cricket matches, which now commonly appear on coupons.

It is important that the pools companies are permitted to run their businesses as efficiently as possible, with the minimum of bureaucratic restraints and obstacles. I am sure that the Government would tell us that that is in line with Government policy. It is absurd, therefore, that the companies will be allowed to sell in shops only coupons that use only football matches, whereas on coupons that are sold door-to-door, they will be allowed to use a number of different sports. The ludicrous position would be created whereby the pools companies were forced to issue two types of coupon. The first would be for sale in shops and would relate only to football matches and the second would cover the rest of their business.

My hon. Friends and I can see no reason why the Government would wish to introduce such a petty and

Column 1103

needless restriction. It is already established practice to run pools competitions on sporting events other than football. The Minister surely cannot argue that the use of other sports on coupons from shops would be socially damaging or would lead to unnecessary stimulation in gambling. Perhaps he could enlighten us about the reasoning behind this curious measure.

The amendment is a simple method by which to maintain the status quo and to avoid all the problems implied by the needlessly restrictive new subsection (4D). It uses wording similar to that contained in the British Telecommunications Act 1981 when it was necessary to ensure the legality of the collection service in the context of the Post Office letters monopoly. I hope that the Minister has taken that point on board and that he will give me a constructive reply.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) raised several points. The speediest way in which I can deal with them is, before responding to the amendment, to say something about Government amendments Nos. 173 and 174 which deal with several of the points he raised. The Government amendments make modest changes to the definition of a qualifying competition in clause 50. Clause 50, which was added to the Bill in the Committee, allows pools coupons and stakes to be collected in retail outlets. The clause is carefully drafted to confine the concession to the present weekly, long-odds football pools competition. The definition of a "qualifying competition" seeks to encapsulate the key features of such competitions.

The reason for restricting the concession is simple. It is to preserve the existing framework whereby only socially harmless forms of low-stake, long- odds gambling, such as the football pools and lotteries, are available in ordinary retail outlets while harder forms of gambling continue to be confined to dedicated, licensed premises, such as betting offices, where they can be better supervised.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) pointed out that the definition of a qualifying competition would cause pools companies one or two difficulties. The definition refers to a

"competition for prizes for making forecasts as to association football games played on a Saturday".

It was put to us that the pools companies were finding it increasingly difficult to obtain 58 first-class fixtures played on a Saturday and were having to resort to using minor league matches. We are told that including such matches on the pools coupon has a depressing effect on turnover. A further difficulty with the definition is that it would prevent coupons from being collected in shops during the Christmas week when the matches contained on the coupons were, in years where Christmas fell on a Saturday, played on a bank holiday Monday or Tuesday.

A final problem arises in relation to the reference to games played. It is not uncommon for matches to be postponed, perhaps because of bad weather--a point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde--and for the results to be determined by the pools panel. I accept those points and would accommodate the first two by including football games played on a Sunday or bank holiday and the third by referring to games to be played.

In Committee,ember for Stalybridge and Hyde returns to the fray on the issue. Occasionally the pools companies run competitions on other sports. The Littlewoods coupons for 3 April included a pools competition on the Grand National. I do not know whether there was a box for the false starts. I understand that Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters also run occasional pools on other horse races, and on cricket and snooker matches.

The entry form for those other pools competitions is printed on the reverse side of the weekly football pools coupon. Under the provisions of clause 50, such coupons could not be collected in retail outlets. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde argues that that would be unreasonable. Although superficially I can see why he says that, I do not agree with him. The retail outlet concession is deliberately confined to football pools because of their special character. To allow pool betting on other sports to take place in newsagents and other shops could potentially turn them into unlicensed unregulated betting offices. A whole range of other pool competitions could be brought in by a whole range of other promoters. Some hon. Members may be very relaxed about that, but I believe that many others remain to be persuaded that the system of dedicated licensed premises for betting has had its day.

1 am

Our debate in Committee has affected the proposal made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who has sought to narrow the effect of the measure. I see exactly what he seeks to do, and if I could find a way of achieving his objective, I would be tempted to do so. I fear, however, that in attempting to solve one problem, he has created another in its place--as I think one always must if one seeks to draft a narrow amendment in this area.

Although the amendment would allow Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters to market their existing cricket, snooker and horse-racing competitions, which form a small part of their activities, it would also create a closed market. Anyone setting up as a pool promoter following the enactment of the Bill would not benefit from clause 50 and so could not engage shops to collect his pools coupons. I have no doubt that the existing pools companies would welcome such statutory protection from competition, and the Opposition may feel comfortable putting their names to such an amendment, but it is too anti-competition and too weighted against any newcomer for the Government to be able to commend it to the House. I hope that the House will not adopt the amendment

Mr. George Howarth : The Minister appears to accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) sought to make on behalf of the pools companies about this narrow aspect of business, in respect of which forms are often included on the reverse side of existing coupons.

The Minister may be right to say that the amendment has a wider compass than my hon. Friend intended. But the hon. Gentleman said that if he thought that he could achieve the original intention of the amendment, he would be willing to do so. Would he be willing, before the Bill goes to the other place, to look again to see whether he can draft a provision that would achieve what my hon. Friend suggested, rather than having the wider implications which he says the amendment has ?

Column 1105

Mr. Lloyd : I have examined the matter carefully since the Committee stage. I do not think that it is possible to amend the Bill in this way without opening up the possibility of large-scale pool betting on all sorts of activities from all sorts of promoters in unlicensed outlets. I shall certainly think again, and if the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) can come up with a foolproof form of words, I shall be interested to see it and shall think seriously about suggesting to my colleagues that it should be introduced in the other place.

Mr. Pendry : Let me reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North has said. We have heard a lot about the fact that there will be a year to think things through. I shall not go as far as my hon. Friend in suggesting that something could be done before the Bill goes to the other place, but perhaps during that year a few heads could be knocked together so that words that would be acceptable to the Government can be formulated. With those words of wisdom, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made : No. 173, in page 20, line 34, after games' insert to be'.

No. 174, in Page 20, line 34, after Saturday' insert

, a Sunday or a day that is a bank holiday in England and Wales or in Scotland under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971'.-- [Mr. Key.]

Schedule 1

Legality etc. of lotteries forming part of the National Lottery

Amendment made : No. 72, in page 23, leave out lines 22 to 26.-- [Mr. Key.]

Schedule 4

Amendment of the National Heritage Act

1980 Amendments made : No. 73, in page 27, line 19, at end insert-- "(2ZA) Notwithstanding that an object such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above or a collection or group of objects such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above is not itself of importance to the national heritage, the Trustees may make a grant or loan under subsection (1) above for the purpose of assisting in its acquisition if--

(a) they are satisfied that after its acquisition it will form part of a collection or group of objects such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above, and

(b) after obtaining such expert advice as appears to them to be appropriate, they are of opinion that that collection or group is of importance to the national heritage.'.

No. 106, in page 27, line 43, at end insert--

(g) to preserve or maintain any building or land in respect of which a grant has been or is to be made under any of paragraphs (a) to (f) above.'.

No. 107, in page 28, line 2, leave out from beginning to unless' in line 3.

No. 108, in page 28, line 6, after subsection,' insert

or a grant under paragraph (g) of that subsection where a grant under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) has been or is to be made,'. No. 109, in page 28, line 10, after subsection,' insert or a grant under paragraph (g) of that subsection where a grant under paragraph (d), (e) or (f) has been or is to be made,'. No. 110, in page 28, line 14, leave out under subsection (2A) (a), (b) or (c)' and insert

such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (a)'.

Column 1106

No. 111, in page 28, line 15, leave out under subsection (2A) (d), (e) or (f)' and insert

such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (b)'.

No. 112, in page 28, line 18, leave out under subsection (2A), (a), (b) or (c)' and insert

such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (a)'.

No. 113, in page 28, line 19, leave out under subsection (2A) (d), (e) or (f)' and insert

such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (b)'.

No. 74, in page 28, line 31, at end insert--

. In section 4(2) (application of section 3(2) and (3) in relation to other expenditure out of National Heritage Memorial Fund) after "(2)" there shall be inserted ", (2ZA)".-- [Mr. Key.]

Next Section

Home Page