HC Deb 07 August 1972 vol 842 cc1429-32

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 3, line 25, at end insert: '(2) It is hereby declared that the purposes for which the Levy Board have power under section 25(2)(d) of the Act of 1963 to make payments (in accordance with schemes prepared by them and approved by the Secretary of State) as purposes conducive to the improvement of horseracing include the provision on approved horse racecourses of facilities for sponsored pool betting, whether provided by the Totalisator Board or by the persons having the management of the course'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Mr. Arthur Lewes

I beg to move Amendment No. 62 in page 3, line 25, at end insert: '(3) After subsection (2) of the said section 13 there shall be added the following "() Before imposing under this section any condition which would or might affect the carrying on by bookmakers of their business on any ground used as a horse racecourse the Levy Board shall consult the Bookmakers' Committee This is an important Amendment. I have not delayed the House, nor do I intend to, but the Amendment should be given consideration. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like the rest of us, that we are in trouble because we have a dock strike. We have a lot of industrial upheaval in the country because the Government refuse to do what Governments usually do—negotiate and get agreements with those involved, in that way trying to avoid difficulties before they arise.

The Amendment provides an opportunity for consultation. I am in favour of consultation. I wish we had more of it in this House. If we had it other than through the usual channels, we might not have these long hours or such bad conditions. I am in favour of consultation for everyone, including myself. But particularly am I in favour of consultation in this case between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee. I do not see why any person or organisation, including the Government and the Levy Board, should seek to impose any conditions on anyone else without consultation with those concerned. I cannot expect the Levy Board to consult every bookmaker or every firm of bookmakers, but it is possible for it to consult the Bookmakers' Committee on matters which will or might affect the carrying on by the bookmakers of their business.

If the Government intend taking action affecting the well-being of the big businessmen they most certainly consult the CBI and the company directors. There is nothing wrong in suggesting that the Levy Board, which gets its money from the bookmakers, should, if it has any intention of taking any action which might have an effect upon the business of the bookmakers, be statutorily bound to consult with the bookmakers before taking that action. I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment because if the Levy Board means to be reasonable and generous I am sure it would not object to this.

Mr. Carlisle

This Amendment was also discussed in Committee. All I need say to the hon. Gentleman is that the only effect of Clause 4 is to transfer the power to approve racecourses from the Tote Board to the Levy Board. I made clear in Committee, and I do so now, that in the opinion of the Government this transfer of responsibility does not in any way enlarge the scope of Section 13 of the 1963 Act and does not provide for the Levy Board any wider powers than the Tote Board has at the moment.

The only difference is that the Bookmakes' Committee is represented on the Levy Board through its chairman who is, ex officio, a member of the Levy Board. This strengthens the position of the Bookmakers' Committee—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

While I accept what the Minister says, am I not right in saying that if there is a discussion on the Horserace Levy Board, with the bookmakers' representative present, there is nothing saying that the Bookmakers' Committee as a whole must be consulted before action is taken upon something which might affect the bookmakers?

Is it not reasonable that the bookmakers should be consulted in the same way as trade unions? If Jack Jones is called back to his executive committee, his executive committee can be consulted.I have nothing against whoever may represent the bookmakers on the Levy Board. He may be a good chap. All I am suggesting is that the Bookmakers' Committee in tote should be consulted when something is contemplated which affects their business.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Carlisle

It is doubtful whether the provision contained in Section 13 of the 1963 Act allows the imposition of any new condition which might significantly affect the conduct of betting on the course. Since the only effect of the Clause is to transfer powers, it is extremely doubtful whether the Levy Board could impose any such condition. If, despite what I say about the unlikelihood of its being able to do so, it were able to do so, at least the hon. Gentleman has the assurance that since the bookmakers' representative is an ex officio member of the Board the bookmakers' voice can be heard.

I appreciate that consultation with the full committee may be better than being merely represented by one individual on it, but I can assure the hon. Member that that which he is seeking to protect—the interest of the bookmakers, is better protected by the powers transferred to the Levy Board than the present situation, where the powers rest with the Tote Board. I cannot accept that the further extension of the protection that the hon. Member is asking for is necessary.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Back to
Forward to