| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I welcome wholeheartedly the regulations, which are essential. It is right and equally essential that the same SOSREP—I apologise for the word; we tried all kinds of other words which conveyed wrong messages—on behalf of the Secretary of State, the DTI and the Department of Transport should be the same person. One has only to visualise a collision between a ship and a platform to realise that chaos would ensue if different people were in charge from different angles. Therefore, I welcome the provision.
I should like some help from the Minister on his remark that health and safety will be involved. I do not think he means that the Health and Safety Executive will be involved, at any rate in the activities of the SOSREP. The SOSREP—I know him well—is well aware of the need to conduct operations in the safest possible way without any threat to health in so far as it can be done. He is also aware—I have seen this in practical terms when he has been working for the Department of Transport—of the need to put safety and life before all else. However, I should not want the remarks of the Minister to be construed as meaning that the Health and Safety Executive can come along to the SOSREP in the middle of an operation and say, "You cannot do that", or "We do not want you to do that". It has nothing to do with that organisation. The essence of the SOSREP system is that he has complete and utter control. The only option open to either Secretary of State is to sack him or back him.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the draft statutory instruments are non-controversial. They are widely seen as sensible by the industry. Likewise, we see them as sensible. However, I have two questions for the Minister. I refer first to Regulation 3(4), on page 2. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) reference is made respectively to "she", "she" and "her". Has Parliament
adopted the convention that "she" will act also for "he" when "she" or "her" becomes "he"? That is a minor point, but I should be grateful for an answer. Secondly, Article 4(4) refers to the Admiralty jurisdiction. Will the Admiralty Court be able to claim funding to carry out that additional duty?
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I, too, welcome the regulations and give them every support. Unfairly, I take the opportunity to observe, as someone who lives in north-east Scotland, that the continuing day-to-day pollution emanating from the various oil rigs in our northern waters on to our onshore areas is a constant disgrace.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support these important regulations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his observations and support and to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble and learned Lord is right in saying that there is no possibility of the Health and Safety Executive entering an incident such as an oil spill or an accident to an offshore installation and countermanding the authority of the SOSREP.
The regulations make the same provision for offshore installations as existing powers for ships under Sections 137 to 140 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Regulation 3(6) is modelled on Section 137 of that Act. To ensure consistency between the two pieces of legislation, the SOSREP will carry out that duty. He will always ensure that health and safety take priority. In practical terms, if there is an accident to an offshore rig and dangerous activities such as capping off the flow have to be undertaken, the workers on the rig will be taken off first. Only those people who need to be there to undertake the capping will be present while it takes place. The SOSREP will take advice on health and safety issues from specialist advisers because he will not necessarily have the skills in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked me two questions. The first related to references to "he" and "she". Under the Interpretation Act, words denoting masculine can mean feminine and vice versa. We use "she" to refer to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the present time because it is a she—Patricia Hewitt. However, if a man were to take over the post regulations under his jurisdiction would refer to "he". That is the only reason for it. SOSREP happens to be a he at the present time. If it were a she it would say so.
The noble Lord asked whether there is funding for Admiralty jurisdiction under Regulation 4(4). I think that I can give him the assurance that there will be sufficient funding. If I am wrong about that I shall write to him.
I understand and sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. That is not relevant to the content of the regulations. The noble Lord agrees.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for his support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 2002
8.2 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am satisfied that this draft order is compatible with convention rights. The purpose of the order is to remove the restrictions on the form of refreshments, other than alcohol, which may be sold in licensed betting offices in Great Britain.
Currently, betting offices are only allowed to sell their customers pre-packaged food. In the vast majority of cases that means packets of crisps and chocolate bars. There is no good reason to retain this restriction. Indeed, on nutritional grounds there may be good reasons to abolish it.
If bookmakers have the facilities to provide a wider, better range of food products then surely they should be allowed to do so.
Following the report produced last year by Sir Alan Budd and his team in the independent Gambling Review Body, the Government published their response earlier this year in a paper called, A safe bet for success. It outlined the strategy for updating the regulation of gambling and for a range of measures that would help the industry thrive in the 21st century. Most of those measures require further consideration of detailed points, but they will form the basis of a new wide-ranging gambling Bill.
However, where we can help the industry in the meantime with some interim changes, such as those contained in this order, it is right that we should do so. It does not represent any fundamental change in policy and will serve to implement a specific recommendation contained in the Gambling Review Body's report. It is a timely sensible extension of what is already permitted and, as such, it should be welcomed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Luke: My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to hear that there is absolutely no objection from these Benches to the measure. I do not have any questions either.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the last time I spoke about betting offices in this House was nine years ago regarding the Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) regulations. On that day I had grave reservations about those regulations. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that I have no such reservations today.
On that occasion we discussed extending the opening hours for betting shops on Saturday evenings to 10 o'clock. My remarks were mainly about the employment of women and what I thought were the unsatisfactory preparations which bookmakers had made.
I made some fairly trenchant remarks on that occasion. They were provoked, if I may say so without speaking ill of the dead, by the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford. In extolling betting shops he described them in a manner which I thought presented them as places full of daffodils and families. Indeed, he said:
- "Betting is a high, moral occupation".—[Official Report, 22/2/93; col. 34.]
I was taken to task for that by the only daily publication which—happily—is not in your Lordships' House. It describes itself as the newspaper adults read and has "Sport" in its title. Three pages were devoted to reviling my remarks on that occasion. I was referred to not only as a "dotty peer", but as a "pain in the 'orse". Of course a copy of that paper has become a treasured possession of mine. In the past two or three years, however, the Sun—a very respectable newspaper in comparison—has been kind enough to label me "the punters' friend", and my birthday is now regularly reported in the Racing Post. So whatever misdemeanours I committed on that occasion have probably vanished well into the past—at least, I hope so.
On a serious point, one cannot object to people wanting refreshments in betting shops. I do not want to appear too familiar with betting shops, but I do know something about them and have been in them over the years. At present, when people want refreshment they go round the corner to buy it—and in London they are well served with sandwich bars and cafes of all kinds. That is not a good thing for bookmakers, who rely on a steady turnover. If people leave the betting shop to eat and drink elsewhere, they may miss the next dog race. The great thing that bookmakers want to do is to get people betting all the time.
However, if people are expecting betting offices to be centres of gastronomic excellence, they can think again. One of the characteristics of betting shops—if I can paint this picture without making them seem too seedy and dispiriting—is that most of the people in them who back horses regularly are chain-smokers. Betting offices are absolutely thick with smoke. I do not think that anyone, apart from the most compulsive punter chasing his losses, would want to enjoy a sandwich in a betting shop. But good luck to the bookmakers if they can produce something tolerable that people want to eat. I have no objection to that. It is the business of bookmakers to get as much turnover as they can—and now, under the excellent new tax structures introduced by the Government, that benefits racing as a whole.
In summary, I hope that I have not been "a pain in the 'orse" to the House, or to the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench. I repeat: on behalf of these Benches, I welcome the order.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page