§ Mr. CRAWFURDI desire to put one or two questions to the Home Secretary with regard to the activity or inactivity of the Betting Control Board which was set up by the Totalisator Act last August. Under that Act, there are four representatives of the Government on the Board, and, therefore, Parliament cannot divest itself from responsibility for what has been done by the Board. The right hon. Gentleman has been courteous enough to write to me in relation to the points which I wish to raise. He points out in his letter, that, as Home Secretary, he has the responsibility, first of all, of appointing a Chairman of the Board and appointing another member of the Board, and, secondly, of prescribing the form of accounts of moneys received and expended by the Board. I am not making any attack on the right hon. Gentleman. In fact, I sympathise with him. This child of the Totalisator Act, or rather, this changeling, as it changed very considerably in the course of its passage through Parliament, has been adopted by the Government, and in my view should have been attacked for its upbringing to the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, being under some suspicion as to the paternity of the child, would have none of it, and, when they brought it to the Exchequer, he said: "No, go and leave it on the step of the Home Office." The Home Secretary is rather to be commiserated; but we have a duty to the public. There has been some public interest aroused and some correspondence in the more responsible Press as to what is going on.
These are the kind of questions I would like to ask: This Board has officials, employés, offices in London and Leeds, is making surveys, has been employing professional men, and yet there is no knowledge so far as Parliament is concerned as to how much money has been expended, as to who is supplying the money that has been expended, or as to who is going to supply it, except that we know the cost must ultimately come from the public out of the percentage to be retained by the totalisator. It does not seem to be right that Parliament should be without information when there are one or two questions with regard to the way in which this money is being ex- 2519 pended which are very pertinent. We had the advantage the other day of asking a few questions of the Chairman and other members of the Control Board. We were received with perfect courtesy and answers were given so far as they felt able to give the answers. But the answers were not complete. For instance—I am sorry the Attorney-General has left the House, because this might appeal to him—we learned that, instead of adopting one of the machines which have already been in use for many years in the Dominions and foreign countries, the Board is experimenting with what I might call a synthetic totalisator. It is trying to make up one. Specifications have been asked for, and an hon. Member who asked questions about patents was assured that the people who would make these machines would have to insert a clause safeguarding the Government against any claim for infringement of patent. Anybody who knows the law, knows that is no safeguard at all. How far is the public purse safeguarded by an agreement of this kind?
Again, why has there been all this delay? We were told last summer that the Bill was wanted because it was hoped to have these machines erected on the racecourses during the coming year, but I believe there is very little chance of there being more than one erected by the end of the year. In reply to a further question, I was told that the Board was living on an overdraft and that beyond that no information could be given. I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's own letter that he has to prescribe a form of accounts for the monies received and expended by the Board, and to present to Parliament the Board's annual Report of their proceedings, together with their accounts. If the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to answer, and feels inclined to answer, may I ask if he has made any inquiry into the expenditure by the Board and into the financial arrangements that have been made? What is the meaning of the phrase "living on an overdraft?" Is it a bank overdraft, or what financial arrangements have been made?
In general, I should like to know to what extent the public, because the public in the long run will have to pay this money, has been committed. I asked 2520 at that particular meeting whether there was any possibility of saying what would be the percentage taken from the Totalisator Fund, and I was told that it was quite impossible at the moment to arrive at any figure at all. Therefore, the sum total of it was that, beyond being told that they were doing their best, that they hoped to get one or two machines erected this year, and that there was an office in London and another in Leeds, we were quite unable to get any information at all as to what are the commitments into which the Board has entered.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYTo what meeting is the hon. Member referring?
§ Mr. CRAWFURDI am referring to a meeting held some weeks ago, at which we were given the opportunity of asking questions of the chairman of the Board. It was a meeting to which those Members of the House who had been on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill last year were invited, and many of them availed themselves of the opportunity to attend. In general, there is a good deal of uneasiness, partly owing to the circumstances in which the Act was passed, on the part of the general public, as has been shown by correspondence in the Press, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot answer my questions now, at any rate to give me some assurance that he will make some inquiries into what is going on.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow West (Mr. Crawfurd) has been good enough to ask certain questions in regard to this matter. I will not say I think he must have omitted to look at the Act of Parliament, but he must have forgotten the circumstances under which the Act was passed. I rather think that Parliament, when it passed this Act, must have had the hon. Member in its mind, because Parliament said it would so constitute this Board that the hon. Gentleman could not ask all these questions. Parliament did not want the Government to be responsible for all the details in connection with this Board.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI know, but I, as Home Secretary, certainly did not intend, if I could help it, that Parliament should pass an Act that would place on my shoulders the responsibility of telling my hon. Friend opposite what the odds were on any particular totalisator on any particular race. If the hon. Gentleman is really entitled to ask all these questions, there is a whole series of questions which could be put, at any time, not merely on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, but at Question Time, as regards the actions of this Board. I have the Act here, and let us see what the position is. Parliament appointed this Statutory Board, and the first place where the Home Secretary or any other Minister comes into touch with the Board is through the right of appointing, in the first place, a chairman. I have to appoint the chairman; others of my colleagues, with myself, appoint various other members of the Board; and certain outside bodies, such as the Jockey Club, the National Hunt Committee, and others, appoint other members of the Board; that is the unofficial constitution of the Board.
Having appointed the Board we have to find out where else any possible Parliamentary control is created by the Act. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that the Board has from time to time, when there is any surplus in the totalisator, to apply the money, in accordance with a scheme prepared by the Board and approved by the Secretary of State, for certain purposes such as the breeding of horses or the sport of horse racing. There I come in again, and the hon. Gentleman will be entitled to ask me whether the Board has submitted a scheme to me, and whether I have approved it. I agree that he will be entitled to go further and ask for details of the scheme and of my approval. The only other respect in which I am affected is that the Board has to submit annually to the Secretary of State a report of their proceedings, together with their accounts in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State. The Board came into existence at the end of last year and they have suggested 2522 to me, and I have agreed, that their first year shall run for 15 months until the end of 1929; thenceforward, it will run according to the calendar year. Until the end of this year, there will necessarily be no accounts presented to me. Therefore, there will be nothing for me to approve. Equally, there will be no totalisator fund out of which it will be possible to make grants for horse breeding or any other purpose. Therefore, I can only say to my hon. Friend that under the Act—and I must take my stand upon the Act—I am not responsible, nor is Parliament, for the day-to-day transactions of this Board.
§ Mr. CRAWFURDI am not asking about the day-to-day transactions, and the odds, and so on, because it would be impossible for Parliament to interfere. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be annual reports, and comparing the position of the Board with that of a public company, I am asking whether there ought not to be something like a statutory meeting.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo, because it is not a statutory company coming under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is a statutory board appointed by Parliament, and controlled only in particular details by Parliament. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the type of totalisator, but I have nothing to do with that. I am not an authority, and I do not hope to be an authority on the different types. The Board can establish any kind of totalisator which it likes. I have the right to make one caveat in regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about the public having to pay. He used expressions about this being the money of the public. Really that is not so; it is the money of such members of the public as choose to bet through the totalisator, and that is quite a different thing. The hon. Gentleman and I need have no concern about our own contributions to the totalisator, because we need not go and bet. It is not public money. I cannot possibly go further than the very unsatisfactory information which I have been able to give the hon. Gentleman, but at the end of this year I shall be prepared to answer fully questions in regard to the accounts.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. Gentleman need not amuse himself with any ideas in regard to that. At the end of the year, I shall be fully prepared to answer questions whether there is any surplus, and how that surplus has been expended, and to discuss with the hon. Member the accounts and the form of accounts that I shall subsequently have to prescribe. That is all that I can say, except perhaps to advise the hon. Gentleman not to spend his own money in this direction.
§ Sir CHARLES OMANBefore this latest subject was raised, I had been intending to say a few words on—
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOn a point of Order. I want to ask the Home Secretary a further question on this subject, and I understand the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) wishes to go on to another topic.
§ Sir C. OMANI have been waiting to deal with the subject of Parliamentary procedure, and I was interrupted by another subject being introduced.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, and I do not wish to stand in his way, but it has been usual in these Debates to dispose of one subject before going on to another, and I did wish to ask the Home Secretary some questions on this matter, which I think is of some, public importance.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe two hon. Members must settle between themselves as to which will give way. It is not for me to decide. I called on the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman).
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI do not want the hon. Member for Oxford University to exhaust his right to speak if he allows me to put my question.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the hon. Member gives way, he does not exhaust his right.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI hope the hon. Member for Oxford University will not mind if I refer to something which was said by the Home Secretary and ask him a question about it.
§ Sir C. OMANI must protest that I want to stand on my rights. It was my 2524 wish to continue a Debate which was interrupted by the introduction of an entirely different topic. I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, to decide what is to be done.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYThe Attorney-General is away, but the Home Secretary is here, and I hope the hon. Member for Oxford University is satisfied that I only want to put one point to the Home Secretary which will not take more than two or three minutes. It seems to me that the statement of the Home Secretary is a very extraordinary-one indeed. I understand that he is still responsible for the Metropolitan Police, and at the greatest of the race meetings, held at Epsom, he is responsible for good order and for preventing malpractices, including welshing and things of that sort—which of course he does, without any quibble whatsoever. But now that we are to have the totalisator the right hon. Gentleman says that he has no responsibility. We know that he shrank from having to appoint the Chairman of the Board and shrank from advising his right hon. colleagues the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whom they should appoint. But he cannot help his position. He is responsible; and we cannot let this occasion pass without a protest. I do not say there will be, but there may be, in future, some irregularities which raise questions of public interest, and in view of his position as head of the police force the right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly be allowed to ride off in the way he proposes.
The right hon. Gentleman who raised this subject spoke of "we" and "us" upstairs, meaning, apparently, Members who were interested in the totalisator who were on the Standing Committee, and said we were invited to a private meeting upstairs. Other Members were not invited and I was not invited. Apparently there was a private meeting at which the hon. Member and some of his confreres were present and where they cross-examined—
§ Mr. CRAWFURDMay I protest? The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is talking about a conspiracy. May I point 2525 out that if there is anyone who is kind enough to give a party and ask me and not him he has no cause to regard that as a conspiracy.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIt was my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) who said conspiracy. These questions were put before the House, and apparently the hon. Member was satisfied and so was the Home Secretary. I do not think the public will be satisfied because, for good or ill, the State is now a partner in this nefarious business. I understand difficulties are arising in regard to the Derby, which I am told will not be run under the totalisator. It has also been asserted that the amount of revenue which it was estimated would come to the State will not be realised. During the discussion on this subject in the House we were told of the hopes of large sums of money being realised in this way, and how the racecourses would be cleared of rascals. I remember that the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale were met by that kind of argument. Now the Home Secretary tells us that this question is not in the hands of the Government now, and it is no concern of the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman says the Government have appointed their directors, and until the annual accounts come in he cannot give any more information. The Home Secretary cannot ride off like that, and he will either have to do his duty or get out, and fortunately he will get out very soon.