§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is accepted as a matter of policy that betting shops add to the "health" of any area and if so on what grounds and on the basis of what studies.
Earl FerrersWhile I know of nc studies which clearly establish the contribution which betting offices make to the "health" of the areas in which they are situated, they doubtless have an effect economically and otherwise.
The policy on which betting offices may be licensed is reflected in the grounds for granting or withholding a licence, which are set out in Schedule 1 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. As I say in reply to the noble Lord's other Questions about betting offices today, there are no plans to amend this aspect of the legislation.
§ Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in their view it is now generally accepted that betting offices are an integral part of shopping activities; and, if so, whether it is their intention to withdraw the requirement that betting offices should be licensed.
Earl FerrersUnder Schedule I to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, the decision on a licence for a betting office in a particular area is not a matter for central government but one for the appropriate authority, which in England and Wales is a committee of the justices and in Scotland is the licensing board.
1243WAThese licensing arrangements can be seen to treat betting offices separately from, rather than to integrate them with, shopping. We have no plan to withdraw the requirement that betting offices should be licensed or to amend the grounds on which an application for the grant or renewal of a licence shall or may be refused.
Among the grounds on which an application may be refused is that the premises concerned lack a street access separate from that to other business premises. It seems right that betting offices should not physically be integrated with shops, so that people who are not minded to bet are not confronted with inducements to do so, and to support the statutory exclusion of young people from betting offices.
The appropriate authority may refuse an application because: (i) the premises are unsuitable for use as a licensed betting office, including because of their location; or (ii) it would be inexpedient because local demand is already met. The first recognises that there may be reasons, for local judgment, why premises which may be suitable for other purposes, such as shopping, are not suitable for betting. The second allows for local interpretation of the principle of the legislation that demand for gambling, although gambling is an economic activity, should not artificially be stimulated.