POOL COMPETITIONS ACT 1971 (CONTINUANCE) ORDER 1978

HL Deb 19 May 1978 vol 392 cc655-9

1.38 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 5th April, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 5th April, be approved. I think I can take this order very shortly, and remind your Lordships that the Pool Competitions Act 1971 came into force on 27th July 1971. It was to run for an initial period of five years, but contained provision for its extension by an order approved in draft by Resolution of each House of Parliament for up to a year at a time. It had been so extended on two previous occasions. Without those two extensions, the Act would have expired and a number of charitable and sporting organisations would have lost a significant part of their income.

Noble Lords will perhaps recall why the Act has been extended in the past, but I hope that it will be helpful if I refer to the background and explain why a further extension is now sought. The competitions with which the 1971 Act is concerned are competitions for prizes based on the outcome of sporting events, especially football matches, and the proceeds from these competitions go in support of charities or sports. The Spastics Society and some cricket and football clubs are examples of bodies which have derived substantial income from this cource.

A judgment by your Lordships. House in 1970 in the case of Singette and Others v. Martin established that a competition of this kind did not constitute lawful pool betting as had been supposed but was an unlawful lottery and led to the introduction of the 1971 Act. Its purpose was to enable organisations already promoting the competitions to continue to do so within a system of licensing and control established under the Act and administered by the Gaming Board for Great Britain.

Since 1971, the number of bodies relying on the 1971 Act for fund raising has decreased but several continue to place substantial reliance on pool competitions for their incomes. Ten licences under the 1971 Act are extant, although I understand that only seven pool competitions continue to be run at present. The Gaming Board continues to exercise its powers under the Act to safeguard the interests of the competitors and to secure continued financial benefit for societies named in the certificates granted under the Act.

As I have said, the 1971 Act was introduced as a temporary measure, but the question as to what the future arrangements might be is part of a wider issue; namely, what contribution should be made from the proceeds of gambling towards the support of other activities, including sport. The wider question is currently being considered by the Royal Commission on Gambling. In the view of the Government, it would not be appropriate to take any final decision on the future of pool competitions until we have been able to consider what recommendations the Royal Commission may make on such competitions and on the wider question to which I have referred. Unless this Act is further extended, the Act will expire on 26th July 1978. The Royal Commission is expected to report this July. It seems to the Government that it is necessary that the Pool Competitions Act 1971 be extended for a further period of one year. Accordingly, I ask the approval of your Lordships to this order. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1978, laid before the House on 5th April, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

1.42 p.m.

Viscount LONG

My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining this pools order. The way that he has explained it allows us to understand that it will now continue for a further year. He and I had a few words last year about this pool. I believe that it is going on all right, except for the things about which I should like to ask. The first thing that interests me is the Royal Commission. The noble Lord has mentioned that the Royal Commission will report in July. This has been an experimental time of five years for this order; and, by now, I should rather have liked to see the Government place it into the Lotteries Act. I wonder whether the Government have any idea at this moment about whether they will do this within the coming year or in the next Session. Or are they waiting for the Royal Commission report before doing this? I feel that this is one order that could save us all a great deal of trouble in your Lordships' House if it could be properly placed into the Lotteries Act.

Referring to the Lotteries Act, are the Government happy with the situation as it stands, with 10 licences granted under the Lotteries Act? Are many other licences to be granted? What ideas have the Government on the maximum licences they would like? How many firms will take part in lotteries? My further question to the noble Lord is about the money that the Government receive from the pool. I should be interested if he could give us some outline of where this money is disbursed by the Government; into what charities; or, is it held back and then given to a charity when it appeals? Could the noble Lord give us a little more information on that point? I see no reason to proceed further with questions on this order, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining it.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for his support of this order and for his comments and observations. I will try to deal with the questions in the order in which he asked them. As I indicated, the Royal Commission on Gaming is expected to report in July of this year and, quite frankly, at this stage the Government have no idea what will be in the report. We have no advance knowledge of it. It might be far more comprehensive than we expect, and we would expect something comprehensive from such a commission. It will take some appreciable time, first, to read the report and consider its implications. It may well be possible that the Government would not be able to act upon any of the recommendations in the immediate future, and therefore it may be necessary to come to your Lordships' House to ask for a continuation of this order, perhaps for another year. I think it reasonable to say—and I hope that I am not wrong in this—that one of the outcomes of the Royal Commission may be a consolidation of all the Acts. I know that this is what the noble Viscount would like to see. But I ought not to give an undertaking to your Lordships' House that there will not be a renewal, because in certain circumstances it might be quite right and proper that there should be

With regard to the number of firms, perhaps I ought to say at the beginning that the number of firms which are empowered to function under this Act was specified in the 1971 Act, and they cannot be added to. I cannot remember the exact number, but at the present moment there are 10 which hold licences, of which seven are taking full advantage of the Act. But, in any case, the number cannot be added to; that was specified at the very beginning. The noble Viscount raises the question of the money. In point of fact, the aggregate average turnover has shown a tendency to decrease since the Act was introduced. The most recent figures show it to be about £24.8 million, of which approximately £3.6 million, that is 15 per cent., is paid to the benefiting societies which fall into two groups. One group is concerned with providing financial assistance for sport, principally football clubs; the second with charitable aims, including aid to the Spastics' Society, and to polio and cancer research. Whoever undertakes the promotion of one of these is obliged by law, and it is seen to be carried out, to ensure that 15 per cent. of total income goes to the beneficiaries. It has meant a total of about £3.6 million.

The pool betting tax is 33⅓ per cent. but is shown as 28 per cent. because, before the pool betting tax is applied, the 15 per cent. which is given to the beneficiaries is taken away. So it is 33⅓ per cent. Of the remainder which in the final figures must show at 28 per cent., although the pool betting tax takes 33⅓ per cent. Prizes account for 28 per cent.; agents' commission 15 per cent., because people are paid to sell tickets; printing and stationery 3 per cent.; staff wages—which include fees to the promoters who are employed full-time doing this—come to about 7 per cent., and office costs about 4 per cent. So administrative expenses, 29 per cent.; 28 per cent. for prizes; of the total amount, 28 per cent. pool betting tax; and the beneficiaries 15 per cent., make a total of 100 per cent. which on the basis of these calculations seems reasonable.

On Question, Motion agreed to.