| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am no defender of judicial review. Certainly, I hope that the powers in this Bill will not need to be used. I share the view of noble Lords that the Tote has a very good record over its 76-year history. But I am making two points. First, adding in a 28-day period and the word "material" provides no additional protection. There is still the possibility of revocation; it is just made marginally more difficult. Secondly, even if we are convinced that something is safe, many investors and members of the betting public have been convinced of things that are safe and been cruelly deceived. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is never cruelly deceived.
Viscount Falkland: Perhaps I may just make another point in amplification, which I mentioned regarding a previous amendment. The Tote has a vested interest in its own integrity. Without that, it would not exist, because people would not bet or place money in that pool. That must be borne in mind when talking about what I consider—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, agrees with me—to be totally unrealistic scenarios of situations where the licence should be revoked.
Lord Moynihan: I echo the comments made by noble Lords on that point. There is a clear difference between the opportunity for the Gaming Board to make an order revoking the exclusive licence if it "thinks" that a term or condition of the licence has been broken. I remind noble Lords that the verb "to think" is a very weak legal concept in comparison to recognising that it needs to be convinced that a material breach or condition of the licence has been broken. To say that the concept of a thought—for example, "I had a thought one afternoon at the Gaming Board and I have decided to revoke the licence"—without any further requirements needed and not even saying that there needs to be a material breach is unsatisfactory.
It would not take a rocket scientist of a lawyer to come to the conclusion that this needs to be tightened. The Minister will have heard comments from the
Committee that recognise that it is reasonable and totally understood that revocation criteria need to be placed in the Bill. Simply to think that the term or condition of the licence has been breached is unsatisfactory.The important point is that these amendments recommend a toned-down series of clearly defined powers for the Gaming Board in order that when revoking the successor body's exclusive licence, it will have taken account for what is reasonable. Cases that cannot even come to mind—the Minister mentioned fiddling the books—may be so extreme as to not warrant the rejection of what are very reasonable amendments to the Bill in order to meet with the sympathetic response to a shadow Racing Trust.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage. I hope that the Minister will consider what has been said and determine whether or not it is possible to come back on Report with wording in regard to the revocation of licences which provides more comfort to all concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 25 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Section 8: supplemental]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Moynihan: As noble Lords will know, I have given notice of my intention to oppose the question that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill in order to encourage the Government to take the opportunity during our proceedings to clarify the scope of sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause 9(1)(c).
On consideration a short time ago, there was very considerable interest in the implications of the concept of a fit and proper organisation. My understanding is that those sub-paragraphs replace the requirement that the Tote was a fit and proper organisation. Can the Minister tell us what further requirements the new clause will place on the operation of the Tote after it is nationalised? In particular, how is the successor body supposed to promote the very worthwhile objective of protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by betting?
One of the reasons for asking that question is the recent case in Australia where a compulsive gambler sued a casino for allowing him to continue betting even though he clearly had a gambling addiction. That case is particularly worrying because the loser finally beat the casino and the court ordered that the casino had to repay some of its takings to the punter. Can the Minister expand on all those important issues on the face of the Bill, which substitute the requirement for a fit and proper organisation? That is a major change, not a minor change.
Members of the Grand Committee need to be aware of exactly what the Government are trying to achieve. Can the Minister expand on what precisely is meant by "vulnerable persons" within the meaning of this
clause? I recognise—I hope that your Lordships also recognise—that children should be protected from gambling, but how does one draw the line with "vulnerable persons"? What is the definition of a "vulnerable person"? Who will determine who is a "vulnerable person" in this context?Equally clearly, gambling addiction exists. What role do the Government envisage the successor body will play in limiting the harm that compulsive gamblers do to themselves and to their families? Those are all very important issues. The wording in the Bill is unprecedented, extremely unusual and very interesting but, before we can go further with this clause, a very clear explanation is needed about why this definition of a fit and proper organisation, in this context, has been placed on the face of the Bill; and about how the Government see first the state and then the successor body satisfying the objectives of Clause 9(1)(c)(i), (ii) and (iii).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rather thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was going to answer that series of questions. He is a member of the joint committee that is considering the draft gambling Bill. As he will acknowledge, the draft gambling Bill is firmly based on the three principles set out in Clause 9. The objectives of regulation of gambling will be the elimination and exclusion of crime, ensuring fair play and the protection of children and vulnerable adults. It is my understanding that when the joint committee publishes its report on Wednesday, it will be thoroughly supportive of those three principles. Therefore, the legislation before the Grand Committee will be in line with that to be proposed to Parliament, it is to be hoped, before the end of this Session.
There will be an opportunity for very extensive debate on the objectives of gambling regulation, in which I shall be happy to take part. Indeed, there is a discussion of it at great length in the policy document that was published with the first tranche of clauses of the gambling Bill on 19 November 2003. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will hold his horses—if that is the right thing to say—until he has seen the report of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. If he wishes to raise the matter again at Report stage, which he is entirely at liberty to do, I shall be able to give an answer that will not only set out—because I will have been warned about it—the principles behind the draft gambling Bill, but I shall also be able to assure the Grand Committee of the support of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: I must put it to the Minister that that was a wholly unacceptable response in the context of this legislation, as admirable as it is as an explanation of the Government's intention within gaming legislation. The fact is that before we have even seen the details of the Government's position on the excellent work that is being done on the gaming Bill, we find a major shift in the gaming legislation that we are here to scrutinise. It shifts from a concept that is understandable by all in law—namely, a fit and proper
organisation—to a shadow Racing Trust, which will, it is to be hoped, become a Racing Trust, and will have to promote the three objectives, which are admirable, and I thoroughly support them.I think that they have significant merit, but they are open to wide interpretation. I do not understand what, for example, a vulnerable person is in the context of the Bill. Before we turn to anything else in this clause, I should be grateful if the Minister could give us a definition of a "vulnerable person" in the context of Clause 9.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, should think that somehow horseracing and betting on horseracing should be treated differently from other forms of gambling. It is part of the spectrum of betting and gaming that is covered by gambling regulation. The noble Lord claims that the concepts of our three objectives are unclear and imprecise. The fit and proper concept has certainly been found to be imprecise and has been explicitly rejected by the Government in their gambling legislation. It would be odd, to say the least, if, in dead seriousness, we pursued the first major review of gambling regulation for something like 40 years and we included in a Bill that is confined to horserace betting a concept that is explicitly rejected in our view of gambling regulation. That would be the oddity which would have to be explained.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page