Section 8: supplemental
Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill
3:45 pm

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in

clause 9, page 7, line 7, leave out from 'for' to end of line and insert

'all such relief, by way of damages, injunction or otherwise, as the court thinks appropriate and the court may grant an injunction restraining an infringement or apprehended infringement of the right aforesaid whether or not any other relief is claimed.'.

This is a slightly more technical amendment. Clause 9(6) allows the successor company to proceed against somebody who commits or threatens a breach of the licence

''in the High Court or county court for damages or such other relief as the court thinks appropriate.''

Section 14(2) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 allows the Tote to seek an injunction at the same time that another relief such as damages is claimed. The wording in the 1963 Act acknowledges that damages or an injunction alone may not be sufficient relief, whereas the wording in clause 9(6) allows the successor company to seek only

''damages or such other relief as the court thinks appropriate.''

The fact that the statute has been amended could be interpreted such that damages or such other relief—that is, an injunction—were now considered a sufficient remedy for the Tote. That would make it harder for the Tote to seek an injunction at the same time as damages.

The Tote has effectively used the provisions under section 14(2) of the 1963 Act on many occasions. Therefore, any new wording may lead to unnecessary confusion as to the remedies available to the Tote. It is clear that its position is stronger in such a situation if statute clearly states that an injunction and damages together are a possible remedy.

That is why I propose the amendment. Basically, it is trying to put into the Bill the same terminology as in the 1963 Act with regard to the Tote seeking an injunction against anyone who commits or threatens to commit a breach of licensing agreements. It is perfectly reasonable to request that the legislation stays the same, and I shall be interested in the Minister's response.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The amendment proposes that the court could issue an injunction against anyone breaching the successor company's pool betting exclusivity.

The Government resist the amendment. The subsection expressly mentions that action may be taken for a threatened breach, in relation to which an injunction is the most obvious relief. We consider that a court would have no difficulty in interpreting the phrase ''or such other relief'' as including injunctive relief.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

With respect, I think that the Minister has missed the point. An injunction may be covered by the phrase ''or such other relief'', but the problem is the word ''or''. The Tote, through the amendment that it has asked me to table, seeks to be able, as at present, to seek damages and an injunction.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

My understanding is that that matter is covered in the Bill as currently drafted. If that is not the case, I will return to it at a later stage in the Bill, after further consultation. However, my understanding, and that of my officials—based on the legal advice that we have received—is that the phrase ''or such other relief'' would cover both compensation and injunctive relief.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my intervention. I am also grateful that he will consider the matter further. I urge him to discuss it with the Tote and its lawyers; I am sure that he will do that. However, in the light of his response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

The clause is supplemental to the previous clause concerning the exclusive pool betting licence post-transfer.

Subsection (1) sets out the matters that the Secretary of State must consider in making a request for the issue or revocation of an exclusive pool betting licence. It is right that that should be transparent. It embodies the Government's key aims for the legislation relating to the exclusive licence and certificates of approval; protecting the interests of those who bet on horse racing, and of the sport itself.

The clause is also designed to prevent crime and disorder. It will ensure that betting is fair and open while protecting children and the vulnerable. Those are core principles of the Government's wider gambling policy.

Subsection (2) provides that the successor body, and persons authorised by it, will not be subject to the regime in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 for controlling pool betting, which this Bill will amend, while the exclusive licence is in place. That provides the same legislative position as the Tote currently enjoys. As I said to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, if that is not the case, I will return to the matter at a later stage.

Subsections (3) and (4) provide that, for the duration of the exclusive licence, the successor company, and any persons it authorises, will be able also to apply for a betting office licence to enable them to carry on off-course pool betting in betting shops.The successor company and persons authorised by it are not, by virtue of the exclusive licence alone, to be treated as bookmakers. They will need to fulfil the same ''fit and proper'' requirements as other applicants for a bookmaker's permit if they wish to offer fixed odds betting.

Subsection (5) provides the teeth for the exclusive licence. Anyone who breaches it will be treated as if they had carried on unlawful betting under the 1963 Act. Subsections (6) and (7) provide the successor company with civil rights to protect its exclusive rights. As I explained, that would include the right to apply

for an injunction to restrain a threatened breach as well as a right to claim damages. That right is similar to that provided in section 14(2) of the 1963 Act.

The draftsmen of the Bill have used a shorter wording, which we think will work in the same way. We think that we have covered both damages and injunctions. However, I reiterate my assurance that if that is not the case, we will return to it at a later stage. That is our intention and that is what my advisers inform me.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.