|
Mr. Caborn: We will do that. We plan to make it clear through an amendment, if necessary.
On the specific point made about a letter being sent, the acceptance letter is deemed to be a ticket, but we will clarify that in the amendments that we introduce. I hear what has been said and will reflect on it.
Mr. Foster: Just so that it is clear on the record, I think it is already accepted that the receipt of the letter is equivalent to the receipt of the ticket. However, the letter effectively provides for a series of tickets over a period of time and the issue is whether there is a need for a separate ticket for each draw that takes place, or whether the letter, in some clever linguistic way, can be deemed to be a multiple ticket issued simultaneously.
Mr. Caborn: We will reflect on that matter and provide for it in an amendment.
While I am on my feet, I shall answer the question about 100 clubs operating on more than one premises. A 100 club could be a small society lottery under schedule 9, and small society lotteries do not have to operate on one set of premises.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 237 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 238 and 239 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 240
Rollover
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 487
Mr. Moss: I refer to something that I came across in the Joint Committee's report, which refers to rollover:
''It is unclear whether subscription lotteries (e.g. clubs where the participants are the same week after week and there are draws each week), would be considered to be 'rollovers' and thus treated as a single lottery.''
I raise that point because it relates to the clause.
Mr. Caborn: Clause 240 defines the meaning of a rollover. A rollover takes place when an unallocated prize from one lottery is carried forward to another. Even if a lottery has multiple draws where the class or persons eligible for the prizes remain the same—the arrangements for the lottery mean that they must remain the same—the draws are regarded as part of the same lottery. Where prizes from previous draws are carried forward for the next prize in the same lottery, a rollover will not occur. When the class of persons eligible for the prizes changes, a new lottery will begin. The answer to the question whether a subscription lottery would be considered a rollover is no.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 240 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 241 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 242
Promotion of lottery
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) (Lab): I have a brief question for my right hon. Friend in relation to the offence of promotion of a lottery. Clause 236 states that
''a person promotes a lottery if he . . . sells or supplies a lottery ticket.''
I wonder whether a person commits an offence of promoting a lottery if he buys a lottery ticket and sells it on to someone else. Is he then guilty of promoting a lottery? Since the national lottery was established, I know that there have been cases of people claiming prizes under a ticket bought for them by someone else, when the ticket has been endorsed on the back. There appears to be no exemption in the clause covering the resale of one lottery ticket or even several tickets to further a lottery distribution. I will just keep talking until the answer arrives. While I am on my feet, I can stretch my legs a bit. It occurs to me that we are creating an offence without any qualification of what constitutes the sale or resale of a lottery ticket.
10.45 am
Mr. Caborn: Is a person who buys a ticket and then sells it on guilty of the offence? Yes, but we have to be a little careful; it would depend on the surrounding circumstances. For the superficial cases presented by my hon. Friend, the answer would be yes, but I add a caveat that there could be circumstances in which that would not be the case.
Mr. Illsley: That is interesting, because I could have been guilty of that offence. Once, I was sitting in a restaurant at 8 o'clock on a Saturday evening, which is when the lottery results are announced, when my
Column Number: 488
mobile phone rang. The person who I was with assumed that somebody was ringing to tell me that I had won on the national lottery, whereupon he offered to buy my ticket as a gamble, because we did not know if I had won £10, £50 or £1 million. He said, ''Right, I'll buy the ticket from you; I will offer you a figure, and you sell your proposed winnings.'' It was a gamble—a bet. It may sound slightly unusual, but there is betting on the results of a lottery or selling of tickets in that way, and the measure will create a conscionable number of offences.
Mr. Caborn: That is not my interpretation; in the situation that my hon. Friend describes, the draw had already taken place, so the gamble was on whether he believed that he had won £10 or £1 million. That was a decision that he took, and was nothing to do with the lottery. It was a secondary issue after the lottery had taken place.
What happened? My hon. Friend should not keep the Committee in suspense.
Mr. Illsley: I won a million; that is why I am still here—[Laughter.]
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 242 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9
Exempt lotteries
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 319, in schedule 9, page 169, line 24, at end insert—
'(4A) The prescribed sum referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be determined only after consultation with parties representing those who will be affected by such determination and shall be the subject of periodic review.'.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 deal with deductions from lottery proceeds, particularly for the cost of prizes and for costs incurred in organising the lottery. They provide that a sum will be prescribed for both prize and organisation costs, irrespective of their actual cost. Such a determination could fundamentally affect the way in which incidental, non-commercial lotteries are run, and could endanger valuable revenue in that sector. We seek to ensure that there will be proper consultation so that a realistic limit is placed on deductions for prizes and incurred costs, and that the limit will be reviewed periodically.
Mr. Caborn: I understand the reason behind the amendment. I fully expect the Government to consult interested parties such as the Lotteries Council before prescribing the amount referred to in paragraph 4. I am happy to give a pledge to that effect, but do not think it necessary to place a duty of consultation in the Bill. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Moss: On the basis of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 172, in schedule 9, page 178, line 20, at end insert—
'( ) In relation to registration in Scotland—
(a) sub-paragraph (1)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to a magistrate's court were a reference to a sheriff whose
Column Number: 489
sheriffdom is wholly or partly within the area of the local authority against whose decision the appeal is brought,
(b) sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b) shall not have effect, and
(c) sub-paragraph (3) shall have effect as if the reference to a magistrate's court were a reference to the sheriff.'.
'( ) In relation to registration in Scotland—
(a) sub-paragraph (1)(b) shall have effect as if the reference to a magistrate's court were a reference to a sheriff whose sheriffdom is wholly or partly within the area of the local authority against whose decision the appeal is brought,
(b) sub-paragraph (2)(a) and (b) shall not have effect, and
(c) sub-paragraph (3) shall have effect as if the reference to a magistrate's court were a reference to the sheriff.'.
No. 173, in schedule 9, page 179, line 18, at end insert
'except that, in the following provisions, it means prescribed by the Scottish Ministers by regulations—
(a) in paragraph 43(2)(d), where the application is made to a local authority in Scotland,
(b) in paragraph 47(1), where the local authority giving notice is in Scotland, and
(c) in paragraph 55(2)(b), where the registering local authority is in Scotland.'.
'except that, in the following provisions, it means prescribed by the Scottish Ministers by regulations—
(a) in paragraph 43(2)(d), where the application is made to a local authority in Scotland,
(b) in paragraph 47(1), where the local authority giving notice is in Scotland, and
(c) in paragraph 55(2)(b), where the registering local authority is in Scotland.'.
Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 371, in schedule 9, page 180, line 7, at end insert—
'3A An order under subsection (3) may, in particular, make provision—
(a) restricting the number of lotteries that may be promoted on behalf of a person wholly or partly within a specified period;
(b) prescribing a minimum interval between activity in connection with one lottery promoted on behalf of a person and activity in connection with another lottery promoted on behalf of that person.'.
The amendment will ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations to restrict the number of exempt lotteries that may be promoted in any period, or to prescribe a minimum interval between two exempt lotteries promoted on behalf of any person.
The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 contains similar powers to restrict the frequency of all society and local authority lotteries. For the most part, in the Bill, conditions attached to the lottery operating licence will control local authority lotteries and large society lotteries. The gambling commission will issue licences for those two types of lottery. It is important, however, that the Secretary of State retains the means to prevent the proliferation of exempt lotteries, should it be necessary. Exempt lotteries do not require a licence, so small society lotteries will have to be registered with the local authority.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Column Number: 490
| 
