|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are pleased to report that we have today published the Prison Service Report and Accounts for 1996-97, along with those for 1995-96. Copies have been placed in the Library. In
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Government have given careful consideration to the issues raised by frequent lottery draws in premises. The Gaming Board has expressed serious concern to the Government about plans by a company which runs lotteries on behalf of charities under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 to run frequent on-line lotteries in a range of outlets, including pubs and clubs. The 1976 Act did not contemplate on-line lotteries, and therefore does nothing to prevent them. The use of on-line technology would allow the promotion of successive large scale lottery draws, in a series running through the day, simultaneously in a large number of different outlets.
Such rapid draw lotteries would have many of the characteristics of hard gambling. Their thus unrestricted availability to the public in high street and neighbourhoods raises serious issues of gambling control. Such a development in pubs where, of course, alcohol is available, and other public places, would undermine the long-standing policy, which this Government fully support, that the harder forms of gambling should be confined to premises specially licensed for gambling and with appropriate controls. Under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 the then Secretary of State for National Heritage used his powers to direct the Director General of the National Lottery not to license games which encourage excessive participation. The director general himself has made it clear that he does not consider that rapid play lotteries are an appropriate development for the National Lottery. However, the 1976 Act needs to be strengthened to give sufficient protection in the case of other lotteries.
We therefore propose to introduce legislation to amend the 1976 Act to restrict frequent lottery draws. The measure, which will be introduced in Parliament as soon as possible, will not interfere with existing conventional lotteries run for charitable or other purposes. It will only restrict new forms of rapid draw lottery. The Government recognise that these lotteries could raise additional money for charities but, given the social risks, we do not consider that the new type of lottery would be an acceptable development. Since this will be primary legislation, those with an interest will have every opportunity to put their points of view in Parliament on the principle and the detail. We are also proposing to publish the legislation in draft form to allow interested parties a few weeks in which to make any representations. We have placed in the Library an explanatory document which sets out the position in more detail.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): British zoos have a deservedly high reputation for their progressive approach; the way in which their animals are kept and cared for; and the contribution they make to the conservation of endangered species through scientific research and captive breeding programmes. They have also played an important part in increasing public awareness of, and interest in species conservation issues. It is now more than 10 years since the Zoo Licensing Act came into operation, and we believe it is time to update the system to reflect the changes in the role and management of zoos which have taken place during this time, and to ensure that consistently high standards are maintained in all British zoos.
We have therefore undertaken a review of the Act. Having considered the views of a wide range of organisations concerned with zoos, we have concluded that the system is fundamentally sound and generally working well. However, we believe that there are some areas in which improvements can be made.
closer monitoring of local authorities' performance and strengthened advice from central government to local councils and zoo operators;
the establishment of a broadly-based zoos forum to oversee the zoo licensing system and advise Ministers. We propose that the forum should comprise representatives of local authorities, voluntary bodies, and independent animal welfare and public safety experts;
more flexible zoo inspection teams (though we believe that the requirement for teams to include a veterinary expert and one other inspector appointed by the Secretary of State should remain, and there would be no change to the frequency of inspections);
tightening the inspection arrangements by encouraging local authorities to use their existing powers to undertake informal, unannounced inspections at least annually;
supporting measures to improve zoo standards throughout the European Community.
We now want to seek the views of those directly involved with or interested in zoos before finalizing our package of improvements, and we have today issued a consultation paper setting out our proposals in more detail.
Baroness Hayman: We have today in accordance with Section 38(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 sent copies of the draft revision of the Highway Code for consultation to representative organisations, requesting responses by 31 January 1998. We shall welcome constructive comments on the style and the content of the draft. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
Baroness Hayman: For the purposes of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, a hedgerow is important if it has existed for 30 years or more and satisfies at least one of the criteria listed in Part II of Schedule 1 to the regulations. One such criterion (in Schedule 1, Part II, paragraph 5(a)) specifies that the hedgerow is recorded in a document held at 24 March 1997 at a Record Office as an integral part of a field system pre-dating the Inclosure Acts. Not every hedgerow established under an enclosure award made before 1845 will necessarily satisfy the criterion. This is because, in addition, it must be identified, in relation to the wider field system, in a document placed in a Record Office before 24 March 1997 and must be considered an integral part of that field system, for the criterion to be met.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): The United Kingdom is bound by Article 53 of the Convention to abide by the decision of the Court in any case to which it is a party. The Committee of Ministers adopted a Resolution on 29 October 1997 declaring that the United Kingdom has executed the judgment in the Goodwin case.
The information requested for cases referred by the Crown Court, magistrates' courts, county courts and tribunals directly to the Court of European Justice is not held centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. For cases that are passed to the
|Ref.||Court||Order made on||Received by Senior Master||Letter to Solicitors||Papers sent to Euro Court|
|1/97||Richmond Magistrates' Court||03/09/96|
|2/97||Court of Appeal||26/10/95 (Sealed 04/03/97)||05/03/97||05/03/97||18/03/97|
|3/97||Crown Office||13/03/97 (Sealed 23/04/97)||23/04/97||25/04/97||28/04/97|
|4/97||No order made|
|5/97||Crown Office||17/06/97 (Sealed 23/06/97)||24/06/97||24/06/97||5/08/97|
|6/97||Crown Office||17/06/97 (Sealed 23/06/97)||24/06/97||24/06/97||5/08/97|
|7/97||Crown Office||26/03/97 (Sealed 13/06/97)||16/06/97||16/06/97||15/07/97|
|8/97||Court of Appeal||29/07/97 (Sealed 01/08/97)||04/08/97||06/08/97||20/08/97|
|9/97||Crown Office||31/07/97 (Sealed 13/08/97)||14/08/97||15/08/97||Awaiting Solicitors' Response|
|1/96||Crown Office||28/02/96 (Sealed 01/03/96)||04/03/96||05/03/96||11/03/96|
|2/96||Crown Office||03/05/96 (Sealed 07/05/96)||07/05/96||Not Applicable||07/05/96|
|3/96||Crown Office||13/05/96 (Sealed 14/05/96)||15/05/96||Not Applicable||17/05/96|
|4/96||Employment Appeal Tribunal||14/08/96 (Sealed 28/08/96)||06/09/96||20/09/96||02/10/96|
|5/96||Crown Office||10/10/96 (Sealed 21/10/96)||22/10/96||23/10/96||19/11/96|
|6/96||Crown Office||10/10/96 (Sealed 21/10/96)||22/10/96||23/10/96||19/11/96|
|7/96||Crown Office||10/10/96 (Sealed 21/10/96)||22/10/96||23/10/96||19/11/96|
|8/96||Employment Appeal Tribunal||20/11/96 (Sealed 16/12/96)||19/12/96||20/12/96||16/01/97|
|1/95||Chancery Patent Court||31/10/94 (Sealed 15/12/94)||27/01/95||31/01/95||28/03/95|
|2/95||Bristol Mercantile Court||20/01/95 (Seal Illegible)||30/01/95||Not Applicable||01/02/95|
|3/95||Crown Office||03/02/95 (Sealed 27/02/95)||01/03/95||02/03/95||30/03/95|
|4/95||Crown Office||03/02/95 (Sealed 27/02/95)||01/03/95||02/03/95||09/03/95|
|5/95||Court of Appeal||27/05/94 (Sealed 14/03/95)||14/03/95||20/03/95||07/04/95|
|6/95||Crown Office||26/04/95 (Sealed 01/05/95)||01/05/95||03/05/95||24/05/95|
|7/95||Crown Office||12/06/95 (Sealed 22/06/95)||23/06/95||26/06/95||Withdrawn Before Referral|
|8/95||Crown Office||20/06/95 (Sealed 23/06/95)||23/06/95||26/06/95||04/07/95|
|9/95||Crown Office||18/07/95 (Sealed 19/07/95)||20/07/95||21/07/95||27/07/95|
|10/95||Chancery Patent Court||2 Actions Involved--13/07/95 (Sealed 26/07/95)||27/07/95||Not Applicable||04/08/95|
|11/95||Chancery Patent Court||13/07/95 (Sealed 31/07/95)||01/08/95||Not Applicable||04/08/95|
|12/95||Court of Appeal||31/07/95 (Sealed 09/08/95)||10/08/95||10/08/95||22/08/95|
|13/95||Commercial Court||18/01/95 (Sealed 07/09/95)||14/09/95||Not Applicable||26/10/95|
|14/95||Employment Appeal Tribunal||30/08/95 (Sealed 28/09/95)||10/10/95||08/11/95||Withdrawn Before Referral|
|15/95||Crown Office||31/10/95 (Sealed 02/11/95)||03/11/95||07/11/95||14/11/95|
|16/95||Crown Office||03/11/95 (Sealed 18/12/95)||19/12/95||19/12/95||22/03/95|
|17/95||Crown Office||16/11/95 (Sealed 14/02/96)||15/02/96||16/02/96 (Chased 12/09/96)||19/09/96|
|18/95||Court of Appeal||See 2/97 for details--entered twice|
|19/95||Crown Office||12/12/95 (Sealed 14/12/95)||15/12/95||15/12/95||28/12/95|
|1/94||Commercial Court||13/01/94||13/01/94||Not Applicable||14/01/94|
|2/94||Crown Office||12/01/94 (Sealed 21/01/94)||21/01/94||24/01/94||26/01/94|
|3/94||Court of Appeal||18/01/94 (Sealed 03/03/94)||04/03/94||07/03/94||14/03/94|
|4/94||Crown Office||04/05/94 (Sealed 17/05/94)||17/05/94||19/05/94||07/07/94|
|5/94 & 6/94||Crown Office||2 Orders 04/05/94 (Sealed 09/05/94)||11/05/94||12/05/94||06/06/94|
|7/94||Crown Office||05/05/94 (Sealed 06/05/94)||06/05/94||09/05/94||12/05/94|
|8/94||Court of Appeal||10/02/94 (Sealed 07/06/94)||09/06/94||13/06/94||20/06/94|
|9/94||Queens Bench Division||01/07/94 (Sealed 07/07/94)||11/07/94||Not Applicable||19/07/94|
|10/94||Queens Bench Division||23/05/94 (Sealed 24/05/94)||Not Recorded||Not Recorded||03/08/94|
|11/94||Crown Office||25/07/94 (Sealed 13/10/94)||14/10/94||14/10/94||11/11/94|
|12/94||Crown Office||29/07/94||03/08/94||Not Applicable||04/08/94|
|13/94||Crown Office||12/10/94 (Sealed 27/10/94)||28/10/94||28/10/94 (Chased 3/95)||10/03/95|
|1/93||Crown Office||18/11/92 (Sealed 18/01/93)||11/02/93||Not Applicable||15/02/93|
|2/93||Crown Office||23/04/93 (Sealed 27/04/93)||28/04/93||28/04/93||25/06/93|
|3/93||Crown Office||09/03/93 (Sealed 14/06/93)||14/06/93||Not Applicable||23/06/93|
|4/93||Court of Appeal||18/05/93 (Sealed 11/06/93)||16/06/93||21/06/93||01/07/93|
|5/93||Crown Office||23/07/93 (Sealed 21/10/93)||21/10/93||26/10/93||10/11/93|
|6/93||Crown Office||28/07/93 (Sealed 29/07/93)||13/07/93||03/08/93||17/08/93|
|7/93||Court of Appeal||14/07/93 (Sealed 13/10/93)||14/10/93||15/10/93||26/10/93|
|8/93||Crown Office||27/10/93 (Sealed 03/12/93)||06/12/93||06/12/93 (Chased 4/94)||27/04/94|
|10/93||Crown Office||02/12/93 (Sealed 19/01/94)||21/01/94||Not Applicable||26/01/94|
|11/93||Crown Office||14/12/93 (Sealed 23/12/93)||23/12/93||29/12/93||29/12/93|
|Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|