HL Deb 25 February 1971 vol 315 cc1217-23

6.0 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Amendments of Betting, Gaining and Lotteries Act 1963]:

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("5(1)") to ("after") in line 9.

The noble Lord said: There is a fairly large number of Amendments down for consideration this afternoon, having regard to the fact that this is a very small Bill. In the main, they arise from observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, during his Second Reading speech and they are observations with which I am in agreement. In referring to the new notification procedure which will be required, the noble Lord said: It involves a fairly complicated alteration to the existing law to ensure that local authorities are given adequate notice in advance of the actual days chosen and which of them are to be 'special' days on which double racing will take place; and indeed some notification in arrear of the days on which racing did not take place at all.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11/2/71; col. 343.]

Perhaps the most far-reaching observation which the noble Lord made was in respect of the possibility that the extra days which the Bill permits might be used, at least in part, for some newly-arising sport or for one which is at present unknown but which becomes suddenly popular. He was good enough to say that his objection could, however, be overcome if the proposed increase in the number of betting days was confined to betting on dog racing. Most of the Amendments arise from those two remarks, particularly this Amendment. It is necessary to delete the words covered by the Amendment, because there is need to make separate provision in Section 5 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 for the increase in betting days to be made applicable only to dog racing. That is what the Amendment achieves. I beg to move.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)

I explained on Second Reading that the attitude of the Government towards this Bill was one of benevolent neutrality, and I said that we recognised the aims of the Bill and did not dissent from them. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said. I pointed out one or two aspects of the Bill where it appeared that the drafting could be improved, and I am pleased that my Department has been able to point out one or two of these defects and suggest ways of meeting them. So I can say to your Lordships at the beginning of this Committee stage that the Government are in general agreement with the Amendments which have been put forward. Of course they are the noble Lord's Amendments—it is his Bill—and they are rot in any way to be taken as Government Amendments. But we see the reasoning behind them and we are very happy to give them our support.

LORD STONHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This is purely drafting and avoids a double negative.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, leave out ("not").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 11, leave out ("13 days (other than special betting days)") and insert ("14 days").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are both concerned with paragraph (c). If Amendment No. 3 is accepted, the total number of betting days permitted in a month could be 14, but the 14 will include the special betting days. The custom as operated at some tracks, particularly those at the seaside, is to have three meetings a week and in some of the longer calendar months that means they hold 14 meetings. The Amendment will take account of that, so that they can carry on as they do now. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 4. It was not the intention that horse racing should be in any way affected by this Bill, and this Amendment makes that perfectly clear.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("except on an approved horse racecourse").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD WINDLESHAM

As I mentioned on Second Reading, this is a point of some substance. The Bill is not intended to deal with horse-racing. If confusion should result it would be unfortunate, and it is not at all what the noble Lord has in mind. So this Amendment clarifies one possible area of doubt.

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 5: Page 1, line 12, at end insert— ( ) after section 5(1) there were inserted the following subsection— (1A) In relation to a dog racecourse which is a licensed track paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection shall have effect as if for the words 'one hundred and four' there were substituted the words 'one hundred and thirty'".

The noble Lord said: This Amendment reinserts the words which were taken out by Amendment No. 1, but in a somewhat different form. They are solely to make separate provision for the increase of betting days to apply only to dog racing. Again, this follows the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and achieves what is wanted. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 6: Page 1, line 17, leave out from ("days") to end of line 18 and insert ("notified to the licensing authority under section 2 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1971")

The noble Lord said: This new form of words is necessary to tie in with the new procedure of notification to the licensing authority, which is covered in the new Clause 2 which I propose to move later. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 7 which is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 19, after ("7(2)") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD STONHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, which is purely procedural. It is necessary to refer to the special betting days, in accordance with the new procedure of notification to the licensing authority.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, leave out from ("words") to end of line 25 and insert— (" "day notified to the licensing authority as a special betting day under section 2 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1971" ").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD STONHAM

Amendment No. 9 is also procedural. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 25, at end insert ('and (b) at the end there were inserted the following proviso— Provided that not more than four days in the same period of twelve months being a period beginning with 1st July in any year shall be special betting days.".")—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD STONHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 10. Again, this new wording is necessary because of the notification procedure in the new Clause 2; and, as your Lordships will have noticed, it is similar to Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 3, leave out from ("one") to end of line 4 and insert ("of the betting days notified to the licensing authority under section 2 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1971").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD STONHAM

Amendment No. 11 is moved for exactly the same reasons as Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 8, leave out from ("day") to end of line 9 and insert (""which is one of the betting days notified to the licensing authority under section 2 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1971" ").—(Lord Stonham.)

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Notification of meetings fit which betting occurs]:

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 12: Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause:

Notification of betting days

"2.—(1) Not less than twenty-eight days before the commencement of any month, the holder of a track betting licence shall give notice in writing to the licensing authority within whose area the track falls of the proposed betting days not exceeding fourteen, that is to say days on which betting facilities may be provided on that track in that month.

(2) The notice given under subsection (1) of this section shall include notice of any of those days which are proposed to be special betting days for the purposes of section 7(2) of this Act.

(3) If in any month betting does not take place on any of the betting days or special betting days in respect of which notice has been given under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, the holder of a track betting licence shall not more than thirty-five days from the commencement of the following month give notice to that effect in writing to the licensing authority within whose area the track falls."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This provides seriatim what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, suggested we should provide. Subsection (1) requires 28 days' notice instead of the seven in the Bill as printed; subsection (2) provides that the notice shall include any special betting days (they do not have to be separately provided for), and subsection (3) deals with days on which betting does not take place, because of the weather or for some other reason, and the operator is obliged to inform the local authority within 35 days. I think it is perfectly clear. I beg to move.

LORD WINDLESHAM

Perhaps we should pause on this clause for a few minutes. The Bill is so short that when one complete clause is deleted and another is put in its place it indicates a change of considerable importance. The clause in its present form, as moved just now by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, introduces a new system of notification of betting days to the licensing authorities in place of the old system of fixing days within each area over twelve months in advance. The clause in the Bill was defective in a number of ways. This Amendment substitutes a new clause which makes a number of important changes. Perhaps I may refer briefly to five of them, because they are the main changes.

The first is that the period of advance notice which must be given to the licensing authority is increased from seven to 28 days. This is in response to representations from the police and local authorities to the effect that seven days' notice was too short. Secondly, the notice is required to state not just the number of days but which days these are to be. This is essential to enable the days to be known, so that the police can make adequate provision for crowd control, and so on. Thirdly, the notice may not specify more than 14 days. This prevents an operator notifying every weekday of the month and then selecting the 14 that will suit him best.

Fourthly, the notice is required by subsection (2) of the clause to specify which, if any, of the betting days are to be special betting days. Fifthly, separate notice is required to be given to the licensing authority after the month of any days notified as betting days on which betting did not in fact take place. That is under subsection (3). It will be in the interests of the operator to make sure of this notification because it will enable him to make up these days in a later month, subject to the overall limits.

There are one or two points which still remain on the wording of Clauses 1 and 2 as drafted which my Department would be happy to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to see whether there are any final details which ought to be picked up on Report stage.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I should be very glad to discuss these two clauses between now and Report stage, and if they are capable of modification, and such modifications are helpful, I shall naturally be glad to make them. I am grateful to the noble Lord for dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" of my remarks. I thought I had mentioned most of the things which the new clause contained and I am grateful to him for re-emphasising them. We did have consultations with the local authorities and, of course, there were consultations with the police, and I believe that the new clause satisfies all concerned. If, perhaps, with the winning post in sight, I got the wind under my tail and went too quickly, I apologise.

New Clause 2 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.