HL Deb 16 March 1988 vol 494 cc1206-7

7.48 p.m.

Report received.

Lord Newall moved an amendment: After Clause 1,

("Amendments to maximum charge.

.—(1) The Secretary of State, after consultation with such persons as he considers to have an interest, may by order made by statutory instrument further amend the said section 18(1) by deleting the multiple and by substituting such multiple as he may determine.

(2) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is very similar to the one that I moved last week at Committee stage. As your Lordships know, the purpose of this Bill is to raise the multiple which determines the price which bookmakers have to pay for admission to greyhound racecourses. In 1963 the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act fixed the sum as five times the cost of admission to the general public. Clause 1 of this Bill changes the multiple from five to 55 times to bring it roughly into line with the total which is now paid by the on-course bookmakers via the voluntary contributions paid to the tracks.

At Committee stage I suggested that in order to avoid primary legislation every time this arrangement has to be changed, it might be a more expedient solution if the Secretary of State had the power to amend Section 18 of the 1963 Act by simply laying a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. My noble friend replied that in the view of the Government a necessary condition for the Secretary of State to exercise this discretion will be that interested parties are agreed that a variation is desirable and what the variation should be. The fact that the interested parties might not have agreed when the legislation was introduced in the first place is an inconsistency which I will pass over for the moment.

My noble friend was kind enough to say that if I were to propose a power the exercise of which was explicitly contingent upon a prior arrangement with the interested parties he would consider the matter at Report stage (the reference is to Hansard, cols. 494–495). I believe that this amendment is the expression of just such a power. It does not mention who the interested parties are. If it did, I believe that the Bill would then become hybrid in nature, and without naming the parties it would probably be unwise and even misleading to include prior agreement as a precondition to laying an order.

The wording in my amendment, inserting the phrase: consultation with such persons as [The Secretary of State] considers to have an interest", in the matter is, in my opinion and in that of our legal advisers, the most appropriate method of meeting my noble friend's suggestion. This new clause would greatly enhance the Bill and obviate the need to resort to a Private Member's Bill every time the formula for charges to bookmakers had to be reviewed.

There are numerous parallels in the racing world relating to the need for deductions, levies and charges to be altered after negotiation between the interested parties which do not have to detain both Houses of Parliament. I commend the new clause to your Lordships. I beg to move.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I regret that I cannot commend the new clause to the House. As my noble friend has explained, it would confer on my right honourable friend the Home Secretary a power to vary by order the figure in Section 18(1) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. In Committee, on 7th March, I doubted whether it would be easier and better to vary this figure by order than by primary legislation. But I said that we should be prepared to consider a power the exercise of which was explicitly contingent upon a prior agreement between the interested parties.

The new clause does not provide for such an agreement. Instead, it asks the Home Secretary only to engage in consultations. This may be because my noble friend does not accept the condition which we had to set in Committee, or because he doubts that the consultation would achieve agreement. But, whichever may be the case, I have to say that the clause is defective in policy. In the absence of provision for prior agreement, it is extremely difficult to envisage on what other criterion my right honourable friend the Home Secretary could decide whether or not to make an order, and furthermore to justify that decision to Parliament.

Since the new clause does not meet the condition we set earlier, I ask my noble friend to withdraw it.

Lord Newall

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for the trouble that he has taken to explain the Government's position yet again. Obviously, I am unhappy that he cannot accept this amendment. We shall have to agree to disagree. However, as he undoubtedly has the whip hand, I feel that discretion will be the better part of any contemplated valour on my part. As I wish to see the main thrust of the Bill go forward to another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.