| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter): I should tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 29 on grounds of pre-emption.
Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 28:
- Page 8, line 1, leave out ", not exceeding 4,"
The noble Viscount said: I should declare an interest as this is the first time that I have taken part in this debate, not having been able to speak at Second Reading. I am, and have been for some 20 years, a member of the Jockey Club; otherwise, I am not currently involved with the administration of racing in any way. Although the Minister has almost pre-empted my moving this amendment, I should explain why I want to do so.
As Members of the Committee probably know, point-to-point races are amateur, mostly run by and for the benefit of the local hunt. To run in a point-to-point race it is necessary to register a hunter's certificate at Weatherbys. Horses qualify for the certificate by going out to hunt for a set number of days in the season. The sport is very popular, and some 4,000 hunter certificates are issued each year, together with about 1,000 rider's permits. There are more than 200 point-to-point fixtures this year, run on 117 different courses.
Currently, the Tote does not run pool betting at point-to-point races. However it is prepared to grant authority to the secretaries of the various point-to-point committees up and down the country to run their own pool-betting operations. Put simply, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has said, for a fee of £20 the point-to-point can run its own Tote. That is the current system. Eighty-two point-to-point fixtures in 2003 ran their own Tote; so far, 75 have applied to do so in 2004.
The standard of racing is rather varied, as one might expect with the number of amateurs taking part. Bookmakers are not keen to offer long odds on outsiders, as the outcome of the races can be unpredictable. Therefore, it is considered very desirable to offer pool betting whenever the demand is justified. By way of illustration, some years ago I won unexpectedly at a point-to-point at Larkhill where 58-1 was paid on the Tote, whereas the bookmakers quoted the horse at only 8-1.
The Bill provides for an exemption from the exclusive licence offered to the successor body to the Tote for point-to-points. However, it now concentrates on the point-to-point course rather than the organiser of the fixture. Clause 10(1) amends the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 by substituting a new Section 4. The new proposed Section 4(4) allows for a point-to-point exemption certificate to be applied for from the Gaming Board. However, in that application it must state the course, the calendar year during which the notice has effect,
and must specify a maximum number of days, not exceeding four, on which horseracing may be carried out. That shifts the responsibility from the individual point-to-point secretary to the venue.An analysis of point-to-point fixtures for 2004 shows that 58 courses are used once; 37 courses are used twice; 16 courses are used three times; four courses are used four times; one course, Garthorpe, is used five times; and one, Larkhill, is used eight times.
As Clause 10 is drafted, Garthorpe and Larkhill would be unable to take full advantage of the point-to-point exemption notice. I am sure that that is not the intention of the legislation. In 2003, the Tote provided six authorities to Larkhill and four each to Garthorpe, Cottenham and Higham. In Larkhill's case, although the course is owned by the Army, there are eight different organisers for the eight days' racing taking place in 2004. I could list them but I do not believe that that would be of much interest to the Committee.
The important thing to remember is that we are talking about point-to-point racing only. It should not be confused with national hunt racing, the professional sport operating under a different set of Jockey Club rules at racecourses such as Cheltenham, Newbury, Aintree and many others.
I believe that I have demonstrated that, without my amendment, the organisers of point-to-point races, particularly at Larkhill, will be adversely affected by the new legislation. I reiterate that I am sure that that is not the Government's intention. Things run smoothly at present and the new legislation should recognise that. There is therefore no need for the restriction on the number of days' racing to be included on the face of the Bill. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Without curtailing the debate, perhaps I may help the Committee. We are very sympathetic to what the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, has said. We are talking actively to the Jockey Club about the matter. The outcome is likely to be a higher limit on the number of days rather than the removal of the limit, which is what the amendment provides for. I am certainly prepared to undertake to come back at a later stage.
Viscount Ullswater: I do not think that I could expect a better reply from the Minister; I fully appreciate it. I am grateful to him for giving us an opportunity to meet at an earlier date, and for allowing me to raise the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [New Schedule 1A to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963]:
Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 30:
- Page 22, line 18, after "must" insert "in all material respects"
The noble Lord said: This amendment would ensure that only serious breaches of operating conditions constitute an offence under Schedule 1, which deals
with the conditions attached to the operation of the exclusive licence. The Tote is keen to see this amendment accepted, and I am pleased to raise it on its behalf. It would assist me greatly if the Minister could clarify the purpose of the schedule and its limits.Given that a breach of the conditions in Schedule 1 can constitute a criminal offence, only failures that are material should constitute such an offence. For example, if a Totalisator is not in proper working order, or if it is not properly operated, in an immaterial way, that should not be a criminal offence. As the chairman of the Tote, Peter Jones, has pointed out, there was a computer failure at Cheltenham on the Tuesday and Thursday in March 2003. That was in spite of the fact that the new computer system had performed admirably at more than 300 live meetings prior to Cheltenham. To quote the chairman:
- "High profile computer failures in air traffic control, airport check-ins and banking highlight the vulnerability of all of us to systems breakdowns".
To conclude my short supporting speech for the amendment, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee that such IT breakdowns will not in themselves be breaches of the conditions imposed in Schedule 1. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand and respect the motivation behind the amendment, but according to legal advice it would not make any difference at all. We do not intend that the Gaming Board or its technical advisers should use its regulatory powers in relation to minor technical hitches of the kind that operations will face from time to time—that is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, wants me to say.
It is our intention that the efficient operation of Totalisators be assessed over a reasonable period. The addition of the words "in all material respects" simply gives lawyers an opportunity to argue about what that means. It would be better to leave the judgment of whether there is any failure to comply with the regulation in Schedule 1A(4) to the good sense of the appropriate authorities.
It is unlikely that the major betting businesses in this country would deliberately choose to operate a Totalisator when it is not in proper working order, if that would impact upon the regard in which they are held by the betting public.
If any bookmaker were to behave in that way, it is certainly right that they should be subject to the scrutiny of the authorities. They should have the powers to carry out their duties of scrutinisation of the operation of pool betting to ensure that there is transparency and financial propriety. It is in the long-term interests of bookmakers that the betting public has confidence in the system of pool betting. We believe that the measures put in place will ensure that pool betting remains popular as an alternative to fixed-odds betting.
I have said enough about the Gaming Board as an efficient and effective regulator accustomed to making decisions on the regulation of gambling. I believe that it can be trusted to be sensible about this matter as well.
Lord Moynihan: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He will accept that different lawyers will have different opinions on the merits of the amendment before the Committee. Its purpose is to ensure that only serious breaches of operating conditions constitute an offence under this schedule. If those lawyers who have looked carefully at this are uncomfortable with the response given by the Minister, I will come back at a later stage to clarify further whether the Minister is right and, indeed, whether we can find alternative wording to achieve the same end.
In the meantime, I repeat that I am grateful for his explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Preparatory work by the Tote]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page