| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 17:
"( ) An exclusive licence shall not be revoked under subsection (1)(c) unless the Gaming Board has previously published a code of practice for the interpretation of subsection (1)(c)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 follows on from our entertaining and informative discussion in Grand Committee on Clause 9. My understanding is that the clause to which my amendment refers is designed to replace the requirement that the Tote is a fit and proper organisation. Today we are in a somewhat strange position as the Bill seeks to incorporate a clause of the Draft Gambling Bill which may or may not find parliamentary time this Session.
I was indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his explanation in Grand Committee of the terms contained within this clause. There can be no doubt that we all benefited from his experience on the Greenway committee, examining the detail of the Draft Gambling Bill. Nevertheless, now that the Minister has had three months to consider the issue, I trust that he is in a better position to provide a full response to what the Government mean by the terms referred to and the scope of the definition in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of Clause 9(1)(c). In Grand Committee the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, best summed up the meaning when he said:
"anyone who has money and goes to a racecourse, casino or amusement arcade is vulnerable by the very fact that he or she is going to lose money . . . It is a question of common sense".—[Official Report, 5/4/04; col. GC 517.]
While it is undoubtedly correct that it is a matter of common sense, I think that our duty today is to make sure that the Government set out very clearly what they intend the clause to achieve. Clause 9 sets out the conditions of the exclusive licence, which the successor body will be required to promote, and which it could forfeit if it were seen not to be protecting vulnerable adults.
To return to the detail of the amendment, I trust that it is non-controversial and that Members on all sides of the House will recognise that it is not only right but manifestly sensible that the Gaming Board clearly set out
19 Jul 2004 : Column 41
what is expected from the successor body and how it is supposed to fulfil its obligations to protect vulnerable adults.
It would be appreciated if the Minister were able to clarify whether the on-course bookmakers will also be subject to the same obligations to protect vulnerable persons. I ask that because it seems to be a somewhat hollow and superficial exercise for the successor body's staff to protect drunken punters from throwing away their money on long shots on the Tote if the same punters can walk to the rails and give their money to the bookmakers instead.
To conclude, I trust that the Minister is able to provide the House with a clear indication of what the Government intend the new subsection to achieve and what is meant by,
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, says, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, reminded the Grand Committee that Clause 9(1)(c) duplicates the intended objectives of gambling regulations under the Draft Gambling Bill. The intention in this Bill is that the issue should apply also to the exclusive licence of the Racing Trust or whoever it is.
Clause 9(1) provides that the Secretary of State, in considering whether to require the Gaming Board to issue or to revoke a licence, is to consider whether such issue or revocation would satisfy the objectives of the Draft Gambling Bill. Straightaway I say that those objectives have been welcomed by the Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny and have achieved the general recognition that they are desirable objectives.
The Secretary of State can exercise this power only while the Crown wholly owns the successor company. I can envisage only very limited circumstances where it has come to her notice that there was good evidence to suggest that the holder of the licence was somehow failing with regard to the objectives in paragraph (c). In other words, something would have to come to light after the successor company had been issued with a licence to cause the Secretary of State to reassess her decision to require the Gaming Board to issue the licence in the first place.
The circumstances in which the Secretary of State could do that would be fairly obvious and would not require any detailed interpretation of the paragraph. For example, if the Secretary of State discovered that the successor company was letting children into its betting shops to place bets, depending on the extent of the problem, she might be entitled to consider whether it was a suitable body to conduct pool betting. Of course, she would have to ensure that good administrative practice—namely, that she acted lawfully and reasonably—was followed in reaching such a decision.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the assurance that he wants—that on-track betting is covered in the licensing objectives. In Schedule 4, paragraph 2 of the Draft Gambling Bill all forms of
19 Jul 2004 : Column 42
gambling are included, including on-track betting. However, I think that the power of revocation and the occasions on which it might be necessary are so limited that it would be unnecessary to include the proposed amendment, and I hope it will not be pressed.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his clarification of the scope of Clause 9. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Control when no exclusive licence]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 18:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to see the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in his place. He tabled an amendment in Grand Committee, which I call the "Larkhill amendment". Its purpose was to remove the number of race days which qualify a racecourse for point-to-point exemption notices for the purpose of conducting pool betting once the exclusive licence comes to an end. He said that there were racecourses which hold point-to-point races on more than four days a year—the number of days stated in the Bill. He mentioned Larkhill as an example. I was sympathetic to what he said and stated that I would give it consideration.
I should explain that this provision is not limited to Larkhill. Otherwise, I suppose it would become a hybrid Bill; it would mean that any racecourse could apply for a point-to-point exemption notice. That is what would happen if the original amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, had been agreed to. It would defeat the purpose of the notice, which is to provide a lighter regulatory regime for pool betting on point-to-point racecourses. The right thing to do is to raise the limit from four to seven days. That is what the amendment does. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for tabling this government amendment in response to the amendment that I put down in Grand Committee. It deals with almost all the concerns that I raised at that stage. Since then, I have been informed that point-to-point courses receive certificates of approval from the Levy Board to conduct betting. That appears to make the restriction in the Bill ineffective. I trust that when the gambling commission inherits the issuing of these certificates of approval from the Levy Board, it will look again at this matter and make sure that no point-to-point courses are disadvantaged.
I think I stressed at the time that the Bill introduces a new regime for point-to-point meetings. Responsibility is now placed on the course managers rather than on the point-to-point secretaries. Of course, in many instances that may be the same individual. Applications must be made before the commencement of the calendar year, which means that decisions must be made long beforehand by the different organisers if they wish to run their own tote.
19 Jul 2004 : Column 43
At present, the Tote grants an "authority" to run pool betting to the organisers of a meeting during the year. Not all courses wish to run pool betting systems.
Larkhill, as the Minister mentioned, is the only course that runs eight meetings. I did not want the number seven. That is why I said that the amendment addressed almost all the concerns. But I am an old hand and seven-eighths is much better than four-eighths; so I would not want to query the number at this time. Presumably, on most point-to-point courses, eight days is self-limiting in that the ground would not stand more than eight days' racing on the same turf. Where there is more than one meeting, discussions can be held with the Gaming Board of Great Britain to see how many exemption notices would be appropriate for that course.
I am very grateful to the Minister. With that, I hope that the House will agree to his amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |