HL Deb 25 March 1971 vol 316 cc1023-8

5.2 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report he received.—(Lord Stonham.)

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

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("5(1)") to end of line 8 and insert ("at the end there were inserted "or"")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. I very much regret that at the Report stage it is necessary to introduce a number of Amendments to this quite small Bill, but they are all drafting or administrative points, which I hope can be shortly explained and quickly disposed of. The general principles of the Bill are not by any means affected. This particular Amendment, for example, is purely drafting. Clause 1(i) of this Bill adds a new paragraph to Section 5(1) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, and it is the amendment of that Act which is the principal purpose of this Bill. This entails inserting the word "or" at the end of the existing paragraph (b) of that subsection of the 1963 Act. I beg to move.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, for the benefit of noble Lords who were not present during the earlier stages of this Bill, I should like to repeat that the attitude of the Government towards the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is one of benevolent neutrality. The noble Lord has described his Bill in modest terms as a "small Bill", and although it has attracted a fair number of Amendments, both on Committee and on Report, these are aimed to ensure that the Bill fulfils its purpose of helping to relax to some extent the present restrictions on greyhound racing, and to do so in the most effective way. My Department have been consulted throughout and I think I can shorten the proceedings by saying at the outset that all the Amendments in the noble Lord's name on the Marshalled List to-day are acceptable to the Government and have our full support.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This is another drafting Amendment. The words "period of" are unnecessary. By Section 3 of the Interpretation Act 1889 "month" means "calendar month", and the revised wording completely conveys our meaning. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 9, leave out ("period of").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This is a paving Amendment to make way for an Amendment to Clause 2 which I shall move later. It has the effect of omitting the whole paragraph (b) of Clause 1(iv). That paragraph deals with the total number of special betting days, which will now be dealt with in Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, leave out from ("1971"") to end of line 11.—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 17, after ('1971") insert ("; and"; and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This also is a drafting Amendment. The repetition of the word "and" is intentional; it is not a printer's error. The first "and" is made necessary by the amendment made by Clause 1(5) of this Bill to Section 16(1) of the 1963 Act, which is the principal Act. Clause 1(5) substitutes a new paragraph for the first three paragraphs in that subsection. The paragraph must end with "and" to lead on to the next paragraph. The second "and" is necessary because Clause 1 of the Bill comprises a list of six amendments or provisos and the second "and" really leads on from the fifth item in the list to the last item. It could have been explained, in other words, that the first "and" goes inside the quotation marks in line 17 and the second "and" goes outside them. I beg to move.

Clause 2 [Notification of Betting Days]:

5.10 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2, line 27, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 40 and insert—

  1. "(a) specifying not more that fourteen days in that month as days which are to be betting days for the track, that is to say, days on which betting facilities may be provided on the track; and
  2. (b) stating whether any one or more of those notified betting days is to be a special betting day for the purposes of section 7(2) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and, if so, specifying which.

(2) For any particular track, not more than four days in any one year shall be special betting days for the purposes of the said section 7(2); and accordingly where for any track there have for those purposes been four such days in any year, no other day in that year shall for those purposes be a special betting day for that track, notwithstanding that it may have been notified as such under this section.

(3) If in the case of any day notified to the licensing authority under this section as a betting day for a particular track—

  1. (a) the occupier of the track notifies that authority in writing before that day that, notwithstanding the earlier notification, the day in question will not be a betting day; or
  2. (b) no betting takes place on the track on that day and the occupier notifies that authority in writing of that fact within seven days of the expiry of that day,
the notification of that day under this section as a betting day (and, where applicable, its notification thereunder as a special betting day) shall be disregarded for all purposes of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.

(4) In this section— the licensing authority", in relation to a licensed track, means the authority by whom the track was licensed; year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st July.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5. Its effect is virtually to re-write Clause 2, but there is only one change of substance. The other changes involve a rearrangement whereby the maximum number of special betting days are dealt with in this clause instead of in Clause 1, and the Amendments are of course consequential Amendments. If this Amendment is accepted, subsection (1) of Clause 2 will provide for the advance notification of both betting and special betting days, thus dealing in one subsection with what is dealt with in two subsections in the Bill as it now stands.

Subsection (2) of the clause as it will appear if the Amendment is made contains the main rearrangement of the Bill. It deals with the limits on the number of special days, which we have already agreed to delete from the Bill by accepting an earlier Amendment, and also with the reinstatement of a special betting day if one is cancelled by the operator. Under the existing law, special betting days are fixed by the local authority for the whole of the year. In future, they will be fixed from month to month by notification from the track operator. If the day notified is cancelled, it obviously should not count as one of the four, and this is achieved in the Amendment by the device of imposing no limit on the number of notifications but providing simply that once there have been four special betting days in the year for the track there shall be no more.

The change of substance that I mentioned is in the new subsection (3) of the Amendment. Under the Bill as it stands, if a day has been notified in advance as a betting day and is then cancelled, the track operator is required to notify the licensing authority of the cancellation within the period of 35 days from the end of the month in which the day occurred. But nothing is said in the Bill as to the effect of such notification, and it is left to be inferred that the cancelled day does not count towards the maximum of 130 in the year; nothing is done about it. The Amendment tightens up the procedure by providing that cancellation may be notified either in advance or within seven days—not 35—of the expiry of the cancelled day. In either event, the effect of such a notice is specified to be that the day shall thereby be disregarded as a betting day or special betting day. This is an improvement to the Bill; it ensures that cancellation is notified either in advance or within a week, while the facts are still fresh in people's minds. For example, the cancellation may well be due to extremely bad weather conditions, and in that event seven days is quite enough for an operator to advise a local authority. The subsection also makes it clear that the effect of a notice of cancellation is that the notification of the day in question shall be disregarded, and thus the day lost can be used later in the year.

Subsection (4) of the Amendment, the last subsection, defines "licensing authority" for the purposes of the clause. In doing so it also has the effect of defining the licensing authority mentioned in the provisions in subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Clause 1, which the Bill substitutes for other provisions in the 1963 Act, since these provisions all refer to this clause. The subsection also defines "year" for the purposes of subsection (2) of this clause. I beg to move.

Clause 5 [Short title and citation]:

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. The word "together" is inserted for greater clarity. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, after ("cited") insert ("together").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 3, line 4, at end insert— ("( ) This Act shall come into force on 1st July 1971; and as respects the giving of notice of betting days and special betting days for July 1971 section 2(1) of this Act shall have effect as if for the reference to twenty-eight days there were substituted a reference to fourteen days.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. This Amendment provides that the Act shall come into operation on July 1 this year. This is necessary because the licensing year under the 1963 Act runs from July 1 in each year. The Bill changes the number of betting days a year that a dog track will in future be allowed, and if this change did not come into effect at the beginning of a full year complicated transitional provisions would be required, which the Amendment avoids. The Amendment does in fact make one transitional provision by allowing the notification of betting days and special betting days in the month of July, 1971, alone to be made only 14, instead of 28, days in advance. This will give an opportunity for all tracks to be given the longest notice possible, after passing of the Bill, of the changes it makes before they have to start operating the new procedure. I beg to move.

LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 8: In the Title, line 2, leave out from ("to") to ("tracks") in line 3 and insert ("days on which betting is permitted on").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. I should like to express somewhat belated but nevertheless very sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for his eloquent, self-imposed, but very effective silence; also to thank him and his Department for their very great help throughout all stages of the Bill: without such help I should not have proceeded thus far. This last Amendment is a minor Amendment to fit the Title to the revised scope of the Bill. The Bill deals not only with the procedure for the fixing of betting days but also with the maximum number allowed annually to dog tracks, and this Amendment enlarges the Title slightly so that it covers both those points. I beg to move.