§ 11.49 a.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy 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.-(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
1419§ Clause 1 [New corporate powers for Totalisator Board]:
§
LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out line 5 and insert—
("1.—(1) The Horserace Totalisator Board (hereinafter referred to as the Totalisator Board) shall have power—")
§ The noble Lord said: Perhaps we can discuss this and the other Amendment together as the point is exactly the same. Both the Boards are given their full description in the Long Title but I would have thought that good drafting required that when anything is mentioned in the clauses of a Bill it should be given its full description, at least on the first occasion on which it is mentioned in the actual clauses. This is what this Amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSI know the noble Lord, Lord Airedale's predilection for good drafting, which I share. But there is a reason why the full title has not been set out. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 8(2) he will find that expressions in this Act which also appear in the Betting. Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 are to be given the same interpretation as in the 1963 Act. What one has to do is to look at Section 55 of the 1963 Act which defines both these Boards in terms. Of course there are difficulties, and we have criticised before those draftsmen who legislate by reference. But it would be very clumsy for the Bill to have to go into the full details of the definition of the two Boards, because what the noble Lord himself has put forward is not enough, as it stands. One would have to refer, as does Section 55, to the sections in the 1963 Act under which those Boards were set up, because, if one is going into minutiae, it would be possible, even with the noble Lord's Amendment, to have another body called the Horserace Totalisator Board set out in some other measure which would be different from the one to which we refer here. Therefore I am afraid that even that draft is defective. I do think, in fact, that in a Bill which has to be read so very closely with the 1963 Act it is proper and not unreasonable to attach the definitions in the way I have explained and there is no technical fault in doing so.
§ LORD AIREDALEAfter that reply, I suppose the two Boards are lucky to have their full description given even in the Long Title of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ LORD AIREDALEOn Second Reading last week I raised one or two points in connection with Clause 1, and since then I have received a very detailed letter from the Minister of State dealing with the points that I raised. It was extremely good of him because I appreciate that during this last week he has had other things to think about besides horseracing and betting. I have only one misgiving left, and it arises from Clause 1(1)(b). This paragraph gives the Totalisator Board for the first time power to operate as a bookmaker, either in addition to running pools or instead of running pools. I suppose that in consequence of this we may expect that the Totalisator Board may gradually phase out the pools on some of the smaller racecourses which they are finding unprofitable to run, and the question will then be whether anybody else will be able to run pools on those race meetings, including, for instance, the management of the race meeting. If the management want to run pools which the Tote have said they do not propose to run themselves, they will have to come to the Board for permission and the Board, by refusing permission, will be able to prevent any pools from being run at these race meetings.
The slight fear I have is that the Board may be tempted to take a somewhat grandmotherly attitude about this and say to themselves, "Well, if we ourselves, with all our experience, think that we should not make a financial success of continuing to run pools at this or that race meeting, we should really be doing a kindness to the applicant if we were to refuse his application because we should thereby be protecting him from what we consider very likely financial loss." If the Totalisator Board did take that attitude it would be wrong. There is always room for more than one opinion about the financial prospects of any particular venture, and I should like to think that the Board would be concerned with nothing more than the integrity and 1421 good faith of an applicant and, provided they were satisfied that they were dealing with a responsible person, would put out of their minds any question of whether the venture was going to be a business success or not and would almost automatically grant permission. If the Minister of State were to express views roughly corresponding with what I have said, I should feel rather better about Clause 1(1)(b).
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSIf there is one thing that I think I can confidently say, it is that no Member of this Committee would look upon my noble friend Lord Mancroft as an old woman or someone with a "grandmotherly attitude.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMay I interrupt the noble Viscount? That is a most offensive remark, and he must know that it is the kind of thing we hear from people who have a very low I.Q. Would he mind defining that? I am very glad that Lord Mancroft is not an old woman.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSIt is terrible the way I get into trouble with the noble Baroness, and perhaps I had better withdraw my feeble and doubtless wicked joke.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLIt is far from Parliamentary.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSVery well.
To resume, the primary duty of the Tote Board, as it is in the existing legislation and will continue to be under this Bill, is to run pools. The commercial judgment of the Board must be a matter for it, subject to that prime duty, which it recognises, and the best safeguard is to appoint a strong Board who are able to carry out their duties, not only responsibly but also successfully. I do not know what Lord Mancroft and his colleagues would wish to do about withdrawing or not taking part in the pool betting on some of the smaller racecourses or at some of the smaller race meetings, but I do not think the situation is as alarming as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, perhaps thinks. Although it is true that on horseracing the Tote Board has a monopoly of pool betting, and it 1422 is right that anybody else who wished to run a pool on one of those meetings or races, or anything to do with it, should have to get the Board's permission, there has always been power for the management of a racecourse—and this would include those who run point-to-point meetings—to go to the Tote Board and ask if they may, if the Tote is not interested, run the pool instead. If they do that, under the law as it exists they are entitled only to deduct their expenses, and I believe I am right in saying that most of them think that in those circumstances it is not worth while doing it.
The reason why the Tote does not wish to run the pool, or may not wish to run the pool, is because it would involve very large overhead expenditure. It has to be cross-related to all the other outlets in the country and it sometimes involves a very expensive and uneconomic operation. But it does not in the least follow that this would be so. If the management of the racecourse wanted to run their own pool they might not wish to have a cross-relationship with other outlets and it could be convenient and profitable for them to make applications of this sort. What we are doing in the Bill—it is in fact Clause 4—is to ensure that in future the Tote Board can not only allow the racecourse management to deduct the expenses of running the pool but also allow them to retain a negotiated profit, up to the maximum of the deduction that the Tote itself is allowed to take from the total of the pool. This therefore would actually encourage managements to step in and organise a pool if the Tote Board itself did not wish to do so.
I do not know in what circumstances that would happen, because betting is a fluctuating business and new forms arise. It is not necessarily true that something that happens to-day will continue to happen to-morrow. But I should be very surprised (and my noble friend Lord Mancroft is listening to this) if the exercise of permission to allow others to run pools were dependent on whether or not the Tote Board thought the operator was going to run at a loss. It would not matter to the Tote because if there is a loss the Board does not pay. It would no doubt be very interested in the successful running of a pool because it would then participate in the profits which, as the Committee knows, are handed on for the 1423 benefit of racing. But I cannot believe that this is the criterion on which the Board would decide whether to accept or refuse the application of the racecourse management to run a pool. The most important thing the Board has to do is to ensure that pools are in responsible hands, run responsibly, run for the social benefits of racing and for the community as a whole. That, after all, is the underlying reason for the existence of the Tote Board.
Although I believe that, strangely enough, it has never happened, there is every year an opportunity for Parliament to consider the wisdom of the decisions, not only of this Board but of the Levy Board as well, on the occasion when the annual report is published. So if, in future, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, scrutinising the decisions of my noble friend Lord Mancroft and his Board, considers that they are not acting with full wisdom, he has an opportunity to raise the matter here, and I suppose that I should be the one who would have to answer. I hope that I have done something to allay the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
§ LORD AIREDALEI am much reassured by what the noble Viscount has said I take the point he made that up till now racecourse managements have not wanted to run pools. Perhaps this is because they did not get much incentive but there is the point that having a Tote on the racecourse might attract more patrons. Some patrons are frightened of the bookmakers and are more incluined to go there if they know that their bet will be put on a Tote. Subject to that, I am grateful for what the noble Viscount has said.
§ 12.2 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLMEMay I ask the noble Viscount a rather technical question? It is that if the Tote allows some other body like the racecourse management committee to run a pool, would the independent Tote offices in London and elsewhere have to pay out according to the racecourse returns, or would they refuse to take bets on the Tote which are in the hands of the management and not of the Tote? If the Tote offices throughout England have to accept bets, it leaves rather a serious pos. sibility that the Tote prices might be 1424 rigged on the racecourses, not by the management but by money, and then a flood of money would be going through the offices all over the country and a totally false return would be made. I hope that I have expressed myself clearly.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSThe noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, has got into areas of almost unbelievable complexity. I shall try to answer this off the cuff and quickly. First, the Tote itself no longer runs its own off-course offices.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSNo, my Lords. This is the content of Clause 3, under the commencement order procedure. So far as I know, the arrangement is to continue with the City Tote, whereby the joint company operates and whereby the punter can go into the City Tote offices and into the Tote pool. That is not the only way in which it is done, because in some offices bookmakers are able to do this by payment of a fee to offer odds at Tote price prices, but they do not actually go into the pool. They are nevertheless reliant on the Board giving them the results of Tote prices. That is why they pay a fee. This is good business, I think, for the Tote Board and it should not be discouraged. I think that some of the fears which the noble Lord has expressed are not very substantial, because where there is a race meeting and the Tote considers that it would not be economic to go there, suspect that it would be an occasion when practically all the money would be put on on the racecourse itself. This would be the essence of the meeting, a very small meeting. I cannot see large national bookmakers going to great trouble to do this at a small point to point in North Yorkshire. Therefore, in practice I doubt whether the matter would arise.
If a bookmaker did wish to offer odds, which would not be at Tote prices but at pool prices, on a pool run by the management committee of a racecourse under licence, as it were, from the Tote Board, I am not certain, but I should suspect, subject to correction, that the bookmaker concerned would then have to pay a similar fee to the management committee of the racecourse. I should not be 1425 surprised if that were to go into the calculations of what the management committee then paid to the Tote for permission to run the pool on the race itself or on the race meeting. This is something which I do not think I have seen actually dealt with anywhere because, of course, so far it has never arisen. I think that in view of the size it would be likely not to be entered into by the Tote. I believe that any widescale abuse is most improbable, but I shall look into this matter to see whether we have the necessary powers or whether the Tote Board have the necessary powers to see that it does not happen.
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumedBill reported without amendment ; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of yesterday):
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a,—(Viscount Colville of Culross).
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, may I raise my quiet little voice in protest against this House of Parliament having to forgo its holidays and having to have much of its other Business dislocated to deal with a petty little Bill of this kind, particularly at a time when there are nearly a million people unemployed, when industry is in a state of chaos, when the Stock Market is tumbling and when grave problems are confronting us throughout the whole world? I think it a scandal that Parliament's normal routine should be dislocated to deal with a Bill of this kind.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I cannot agree that Parliament's routine is being dislocated. This Bill was introduced a long time ago in another place and was extensively and exhaustively discussed and quite substantially amended there. Eventually it was passed by that House and it came to this House. Noble Lords opposite have been saying that this House has a duty to consider legislation, and this is something which we should consider 1426 seriously. I spent considerable time last Friday dealing with this Bill in Committee. I have tried, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, kindly gave me credit for, to answer questions by letter. The Bill has been dealt with expeditiously, to the best of my ability, and I do not think we have taken very much time on it. This is a Bill which we consider necessary to rescue the Tote from grave difficulties which it had got into and which are expected in the future. The Tote is something which affects the whole of the betting and gambling industry and it is important to have social control over it. I do not consider this a nugatory matter. I think it was worth while spending 20 minutes on the Bill this morning.
§ On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.