HL Deb 11 March 1985 vol 461 cc57-64

6.13 p.m.

Lord Newall

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 Newall.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

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

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Newall

The Committee will recall that the Second Reading of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill was approved on 15th January of this year. At that time the Government indicated that, while they were in sympathy with the concept of deregulation of the number of betting days for both horse racing and greyhound racing, certain reservations had been expressed regarding some potential problems in relation to the legalising of carry-forward pools for greyhound racing as in horse racing. I am pleased to say that with the most helpful co-operation of the Home Office agreement appears to he imminent to retain the provisions of the carry-forward pools, albeit on a reduced basis, details of which I shall mention in a moment when I move other amendments.

As to Clause 1 itself, as I have already mentioned, the proposals which I put before the House on Second Reading made reference to the possibility of having various types of carry-forward pools similar to the present arrangements in horse racing. Those who are familiar with horse racing will probably know them as a jackpot or something similar to that. However, the concept of pools of this type is very important for greyhound racing as it has been prohibited for over 50 years from promoting these pools and has not had the pecuniary advantages applicable to other betting sports.

However, the proposals regarding linkage of these types of pools between various racecourses or transferring a pool from racecourse to racecourse if it was not won, will now be entirely deleted from the Bill due to the reservations which I have already mentioned. A further amendment which I shall propose later will deal with the new proposals for pools of this type and I would ask the Committee to vote "Not-Content" on the Question that this clause stand part in order to remove the present Clause 1.

Lord Chelwood

Before the Question is put, perhaps I may make a brief remark. It seems to me to be a great pity that the original intention of my noble friend Lord Newall to allow inter-track pools and multi-venue pools, as they have come to be known, has had to be dropped. This matter was discussed over quite an extended period of time with the Home Office, and at one stage some of us were quite optimistic that it had quite good prospects. However, that was not to be. This is not the time to discuss this matter in detail because it is something that must be dropped. I think we are fairly sure to say that we are not content with this clause.

However, I should like to put a specific question to my noble friend Lady Trumpington, who is to reply from the Government Front Bench. Am I right in thinking—I hope that I am—that this extension to inter-track pools and multi-venue pools has not been ruled out by the Government? I shall put it no higher than that. I realise that there are some real difficulties about this—some of them technical—which would have to be overcome, although where inter-track pools are concerned I do not think that the problems are nearly as difficult as they might prove to be with multi-venue pools. But to drop this clause will still leave greyhound racing at a distinct disadvantage to horse racing, and that clearly is inequitable. Therefore, I hope that these problems can be overcome, and I should be most grateful if my noble friend could comment on this matter.

Lord Mancroft

I should like to offer a few words of support to my two noble friends. Before doing so I must declare an interest by reminding your Lordships that I am chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board. I vividly remember the reproof which we received from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill that we must speak only for ourselves and not for any other body. I can only say that that is the view that I hold, and if my board does not follow me at the next board meeting there will be some raised eyebrows.

I am sorry that we cannot go as far as I hoped we could on Second Reading, but I would be prepared strongly to support my two noble friends if there was any risk of losing this Bill—and, helpful though the Home Office has been in every respect, I gather that there might be. I hope that we shall continue to have the support of the Home Office not only at this moment but at some future date if we come forward and try to move some other Motion in your Lordships' House to help this sport, which is in such serious need of help as the Home Office has been only too willing to agree. I hope that your Lordships will support the Question that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Trumpington

I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Newall on having obtained a Second Reading for his Bill and for bringing it before us today. The Bill deals directly with greyhound racing but also incidentally with horse-racing. While I claim no special expertise of going to the dogs—although the passage of my noble friend's Bill thus far is broadening my education all the time—I have more than a passing interest in horse racing. It may come as a surprise to some noble Lords to know that I serve as a local steward at Folkestone Racecourse. I gain nothing financially from my connections with the Folkestone course, but it gives me a tremendous amount of pleasure. That experience has also given me something of an insight into why my noble friend Lord Newall has brought forward his Bill designed to remove some of the restrictions which do not apply to horse racing; or at any event, in the case of the limit on betting days, do not represent a difficulty to individual racecourses in practice.

With regard to Clause 1, we welcome my noble friend's decision not to press at present for carry forward pools involving bets on races at more than one track, or carrying forward money placed in bets to different tracks on different days. For our part, with regard to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Chelwood, we are not suggesting that the difficulties in the way of those varieties of carry forward pools are insuperable, but because the system of control is locally based, much more thought would have to be given as to whether the controls should be changed to match a different concept of pools. There would also be technical and drafting difficulties involved. The remaining proposal for carrying forward pools from one race meeting to another raises fewer questions and poses fewer drafting problems. The proposal, as my noble friend Lord Newall has indicated, is now covered by the new clause.

On Question, Clause 1 disagreed to,

Clause 2 [Repeals]:

Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 20. leave out from beginning to ("are") in line 23 and insert ("impose restrictions as to the occasions on which betting may take place on racecourses and other tracks, and as to the events in connection with which betting may take place on dog racecourses)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. I did not speak during the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am happy to have a chance to join in briefly now—not that my noble friend needs my help! This happens to be a subject which interests me. I suppose that using the word "interests" should remind me to say that I have a small interest to declare here. I was for a number of years a director of the GRA, but that is in the past. However, I in fact own, in partnership with my wife, half a greyhound, and I have high hopes that it will turn out to be a good dog.

Greyhound racing has been discriminated against for many years under successive Governments, and it still is. This is the root cause of the problems which have been facing the industry, including the GRA. I should like to thank the Home Office for the cooperation they have shown to the NGRB; it has been helpful. I believe that this measure will give a new lease of life to dog racing if the Bill, as amended today, becomes law, which I think it has every chance of doing because I have not so far detected any opposition.

Clause 2 will remove the restrictions on the number of days in a year when either horse racing or dog racing can be promoted. At the present time horse racing is restricted, as my noble friend Lord Newall told us at Second Reading, to 104 days in a year, and the reasons for removing that are purely technical. It is an anomaly. Dog racing is restricted at present to 130 days in a year. The amendment I am moving will remove the limit on the number of races on any one day on a greyhound track, which is at present restricted. This accords, incidentally, with the advice of the Royal Commission on Gambling, and these proposals meet the wishes of the British Greyhound Racing Board and the Jockey Club.

If the Committee approve this new clause, I think I can say, that, so far as the number of days racing in a year which can be promoted and the number of races on a day which can be promoted, greyhounds and horses will be on all fours. The only remaining prohibitions will be against racing on Sundays, on Christmas Day and on Good Friday. These prohibitions make a lot of sense to a great many people, and there is no intention on the part of the promoters of this Bill to make any change there in what is a controversial subject with wide implications. I am sure that it is right that here, at any rate, we should let sleeping dogs lie, because this is not in any case a proper vehicle for debating such a complicated and controversial subject.

It is not envisaged that local managements of greyhound tracks will want to promote a much larger number of meetings than at present. They may not promote any more, or they may promote a few more. That will be up to them. What they will get from this new clause is flexibility, and that is long overdue. This new clause and this whole measure will be widely welcomed by the promoters of greyhound racing and by their patrons who enjoy a day at the dogs.

I see this in the context of what we were also told during Second Reading—and it came as perhaps a surprise to some noble Lords—that, in spite of the nosedive in attendances over the last 25 years at the greyhound tracks, greyhound racing remains still the second largest spectator sport in this country. We are talking here about the pleasure and the leisure of a lot of people. It will surely help to boost the profits of the promoters of greyhound racing and thus enable them to provide better facilities and amenities, and I think it will end a period during which the industry has been going through a somewhat thin time, as the figures clearly show.

If this clause is accepted, racing days will be chosen to meet public demand and not the restrictive requirements of the law as it stands at present. This will be particularly helpful for seasonal tracks, particularly seaside tracks, which obviously would like to race more during the tourist season, when people go to the seaside, or when London is full of tourists, than during the winter, when it is not nearly so attractive. Days lost because of foul weather or for other reasons, which is what I am speaking about, will be able to be made up. Horse and dog racing will, in a word, have the same freedom as other betting and gaming activities—and why not? I beg to move.

Lord Newall

I should like to support my noble friend in everything he has said, and to remind the Committee that this amendment will make an enormous amount of difference to the sport of greyhound racing. I hope your Lordships will see fit to approve it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Newall moved Amendment No. 2: After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

("Operation of totalisators on dog racecourses. 1963 c. 2.

.—(1) The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 shall be amended as follows. (2) In section 16(1) (totalisators on dog racecourses which are licensed tracks), after "that totalisator shall" there shall be inserted "on any day". (3) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 (matters to be specified by operator of totalisator in notice posted on racecourse), at the end of sub-paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "; and (c) specify such other particulars of the said terms as may be prescribed.". (4) After paragraph 4 of that Schedule there shall be inserted— 4A. The terms on which the operator invites persons to bet on any race or combination of races on the track by means of the totalisator may include a condition that, in the event of there being no winning bets on that race or those races, the aggregate amount staked thereon by way of bets made by means of the totalisator (less any deductions made in pursuance of paragraph 4(a) of this Schedule) shall be carried over to a subsequent race or combination of races on the track by being added to the aggregate amount staked thereon by way of bets so made; and nothing in section 16(1) of this Act shall be construed as precluding the totalisator from being so operated as to allow any such amount to be carried over as aforesaid from one day to another. 4B. Where, in accordance with such a condition as is mentioned in paragraph 4A of this Schedule, any amount is to be added to the aggregate amount staked by way of bets made by means of the totalisator on any race or combination of races, that amount shall be disregarded for the purpose of making any deduction required by paragraph 4(a) of this Schedule.". (5) In paragraph 9 of that Schedule (attendance by accountant at totalisator)—

  1. (a) for the words from "on every day" to "1971" there shall be substituted "where the accountant has before any day been notified in writing by the operator that it is intended that betting should take place on that day by means of the totalisator"; and
  2. (b) for the words from "as may before" onwards there shall be substituted "on that day as may be specified in the notification".
(6) After paragraph 10 of that Schedule there shall be inserted— 10A. The amount which is to be carried over from one race or combination of races to another in accordance with such a condition as is mentioned in paragraph 4A of this Schedule shall be determined by the accountant and notified by him to the operator.".")

The noble Lord said: This really is the meat of the original Clause 1, which is important to the Bill. In proposing this new clause I must refer to my earlier remarks, which led to the deletion of the original Clause 1 of the Bill. First, this new clause will legalise the concept of carry-forward pools, or jackpots, operating from meeting to meeting at the same track. Secondly, the operator of a greyhound totalisator will be obliged to add in his notices published at the racecourse setting out the terms on which he invites people to bet on the totalisator additional information regarding the particulars of the operation of these carry-forward pools.

Thirdly, in relation to new paragraphs 4A and 4B to be included in Schedule 5 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, the provisions will spell out clearly the authority for the greyhound promoter to carry forward the aggregate amount staked as bets, subject to the statutory deductions both for the on course general betting duty and the maximum permitted percentage for operating expenses. This means that the net units then remaining can be carried forward for the next race meeting. I should like to make it clear that deductions will not be made more than once.

Fourthly, the qualified accountant, who is appointed by the licensing authority and is in existence already, must be given the requisite notice by the racecourse promoter, and the accountant will authorise the amount which will be carried over from one meeting to another. The appointment of the accountant, which has been part of the control of the greyhound totalisator since 1934, is an inherent part of the operation of the tote and is one which has worked extremely well for the past 50 years. The sport of greyhound racing would certainly not wish this arrangement to be amended in any way. The net effect of this new clause will be to restrict the carry forward for individual racecourses, and there will be no linkage, as originally intended, between racecourses. I beg to move.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

Lest silence by this side of the Committee be construed as dissent, I should like to say that my noble friend Lord Mishcon had hoped to be present to deal with these amendments, but unfortunately they came on slightly later than anticipated and therefore he is not here. So far as we can see, the proposals being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Newall, seem to be eminently sensible and have our support in so far as individual Peers support them.

6.30 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

We welcome the new clause, which, apart from overcoming the drafting problems of the original Clause 1, embodies some important safeguards. I should perhaps add a word or two. My noble friend Lord Newall has referred to the Dog Racecourse Totalisator Regulations 1967, and to the need to amend those regulations so that the procedure for carry-forward pools as envisaged in the Bill can start up in practice. If the Bill makes progress in another place it will be the intention of the Secretary of State to review the regulations and, in due course, to make such changes as appear to be necessary and desirable to give effect to the purpose of the new clause.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Short title and citation]:

Lord Chelwood moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 6: Page 2, line 27, leave out ("Act 1963") and insert ("Acts 1963 to 1984"). Page 2,line 28, leave out ("and 1984") and insert ("to 1985"). Page 2,line 29, after ("(2)") insert ("subject to subsection (3),"). Page 2,line 30, at end insert— ("(3) Subsections (3), (4) and (6) of section (Operation of totalisators on dog racecourses) shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint. (4) This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.").

The noble Lord said: I wish to move these amendments en bloc. If that meets with your Lordships' approval, I should be most grateful. They are straightforward. They all relate to Clause 3(1). The first three need no explanation. The fourth provides for the operation of the carry-forward pools to come into effect when the Home Secretary, by order, so appoints. This is the same procedure as in the 1934 Act, which is now incorporated in the 1963 consolidation measure, which ensures that the construction and operation of greyhound totalisators accords with the statutory regulations made by the Home Secretary.

The last amendment also provides that the Bill, when enacted, will not extend to Northern Ireland. I judge that Northern Ireland has had a good run for its money today, but it does not get one under this Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule [Repeals]:

Lord Chelwood moved Amendment No. 7: Page 3, column 3, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert ("In section 5, in subsection (1), paragraphs (a) and (c) and the word "or" immediately preceding paragraph (c), and subsection (1A).").

The noble Lord said: I should explain that this amendment is a drafting one. Repeal of the necessary subsections of the 1963 Act is set out more clearly than before, or so I am told. Perhaps the addition of the word "or" is the clue to the redraft or puzzle, whatever one likes to call it. I hope this is clear to the Committee; it is to me. The ways of our excellent parliamentary draftsmen are indeed wondrous. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Newall moved Amendment No. 8: In the Title: Line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of line 7 and insert ("remove restrictions under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Acts 1963 to 1984 as to the occasions on which betting may take place on racecourses and other tracks and as to the events in connection with which betting may take place on dog racecourses: and to make further provision with respect of the operation of totalisators on such racecourses.").

The noble Lord said: Following the amendments which have now been approved it is obviously necessary to amend the Long Title so that its intentions are clear with regard to deregulation and the operation of the carry-forward pools for the greyhound totalisators. As we are so late, I will not weary the Committee with further explanations. I thank my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Chelwood for being so helpful. May I once again reiterate the helpful assistance we have received from the Home Office at every stage. We also hope that the further stages of the Bill will all go as smoothly as this stage has. I beg to move.

Baroness Trumpington

The Long Title proposed in this amendment gives a very good indication of the purpose and effect of the clauses in the Bill. We welcome the amendment. The Government are entirely happy for the present restrictions to be removed on the number of days on which betting at greyhound tracks may take place and on the number of races at each meeting. These restrictions appear to us, as they do to my noble friend Lord Newall, to be outmoded. We all know that one does not have to travel very far to a local betting office. That being so, it is fanciful to see the present restrictions as serving any purpose in controlling the level of opportunities for betting.

The restrictions would have looked rather more purposeful before the advent of lawful cash betting shops in the 1960s. Against this background we agree with my noble friend that there is a strong case for leaving the decision on these sporting fixtures to those responsible in the greyhound industry, itself. We have taken the point of my noble friend Lord Newall that in times of depression in the sport, in particular, the tracks deserve to have the flexibility to arrange their fixtures at popular times. As we understand, it is not the intention to run greyhound races on many more occasions at each and every track. I am sure that that would test the enthusiasm of the most ardent devotee of greyhound racing. The economics of the situation will mean that the power conferred by Clause 2 is used to arrange fixtures on a different pattern. We are content that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.