§ Two members of the Jockey Club, the Earl of Derby and Sir Humphrey Edmund de Trafford, have turned betting agents. At least, they are supporting with their money and influence a betting concern.
§ It is called Tote Investors, Limited, and begins operations at the Newbury meeting on Thursday. The company introduces a new method of betting by enabling the stay-at-home bettor operating on credit to take full advantage of the tote on any racecourse.
§ By special arrangement with the Racecourse Betting Control Board, Tote Investors, Limited, transmits every bet received in time to the totalisator on the racecourse and pays out full tote dividends on winning bets.
§ The directors of the company include, besides Sir Humphrey de Trafford, such well-known racing men as Sir Laurence Richard Philipps, Sir George James Thursby, Major Cecil Price Harrison and Mr. William Edward Fry."
§
The last named gentleman is also himself a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board.
The shareholders include Lord Derby and the Aga Khan. The Northern Securities Trust, which numbers among its shareholders members of the peerage, clergymen, and a master at Eton, has the biggest interest.
That was never intended when the House passed the Measure in 1928, and this statutory body, set up by Parliament to see that the intentions of Parliament were carried out, is itself guilty of a breach of trust. It may be that they are keeping within the four corners of the law, but in so far as the law in that particular does not carry out the professed
2137
intention of the promoters themselves and this loophole is being used to extend credit betting, then Parliament, in order to carry out its own professed intentions, should take the first possible opportunity of amending the law so as to make it conform with those intentions.
That is not the only particular in which there is transgression. Take the case of ready-money betting through the post. It cannot be suggested that it was ever contemplated by this House that ready-money betting through the post should be tolerated under the Act of 1928, and indeed, in this report, the Betting Control Board itself admits the difficulty. It discusses, in paragraph 64, the suggestion of betting through the post, and it says this:
Another suggestion was that bets should be received by the Board's officials by post on the racecourse by means of Postal Orders, received by the first post on the morning of the day of racing. The practical difficulties connected with such a scheme, the large clerical staff that would be required, the risks connected with possible mis-despatch of letters and dividends, and questions connected with identity of senders, made such a scheme impossible of execution under present conditions.
They were contemplating carrying it out, and in fact on 3rd October of last year the board announced that money received through the post by the manager of the totalisator on any approved racecourse would be accepted. Following that announcement by the board, there was a storm of protest, voiced mainly in the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Daily Telegraph," and as a result of that protest, which was widespread throughout the country, the Board of Control thought it necessary to withdraw their scheme, and on 21st October they announced that they would not accent any further bets by post or telegram. But the point is this, that although, as a result of that protest, they withdrew, within three weeks, the scheme they had initiated on 3rd October, they still claim that it is lawful under the Act of 1928 for them to carry out the scheme at a later date. They have never abandoned the claim that it is a lawful position under the Act.
It was said when the 1928 Act was before the House that it would not encourage an increase in the volume of betting, that there would be no further inducements, that the totalisator would 2138 stand on the racecourse mute and would not bellow in any way, that it could not be moved about from street corner to street corner, and that there would be no advertisement. What has actually happened? A loud speaker is now placed upon the indicator of the totalisator, and advertisements are appearing in the Sporting Press. Last year, according to this report, no less than £5,425 5s. 10d. was spent upon advertising. Can it be said that that is carrying out the intentions and the undertakings that were given to the House in 1928? An undertaking was given that the totalisator would apply only to those courses upon which horse-racing took place, and that a volume of the money produced would be used to encourage and support stockbreeding. According to the decisions of the court—it is true that they are magisterial decisions—it has been held that, the totalisator can be lawfully set up upon courses other than horse-racing courses. That is not in keeping with the intentions of Parliament, and I doubt whether it is in keeping with the first Section of the Act. If there be any doubt, it is time that Parliament made that clear. For these reasons, I ask leave to bring in a Bill to make impossible credit betting, betting through the post, betting by cheque or any other form of deferred payment, and to limit the Act of 1928 to horse-racing courses only.
§ Major GLYNThe hon. Gentleman has complained that the practice of the Racecourse Betting Control Board is not in accordance with the intentions of the House when the Act of 1928 was passed. As a matter of fact, I understand that everything that has been done is strictly legal, and, in regard to the totalisator being used for greyhound-racing, that was never the intention when the 1928 Act was passed. That is a magisterial decision in the provinces, and I have never understood why it has held good. If it be possible to utilise the totalisator for greyhound-racing, it was unnecessary for us to bring in a Measure to enable it to he established for racehorses. We particularly excluded greyhounds from the provisions of the Act. On the wider point of credit betting, the promoters of the Act of 1928 stated that it was their hope that no credit betting would be encouraged, because we believed that half the evils of betting are due to bet- 2139 ting on "tick." As a matter of fact, the totalisator does not accept any bets except bets for cash, and I am informed, whatever the arrangements may be, that they do not in any way alter that provision of the Act. The totalisator gives no credit, and any bet that is made has to be substantiated by money before it is accepted by the machine.
The Racecourse Betting Control Board has had to work under great difficulties. A great deal of the betting in this country is off-the-course betting. The agents who choose to bet with the totalisator, whether individuals, bookmakers, or representatives of outside organisations, are all one and the same so far as the operating of the totalisator is concerned. Every penny of the money, no matter from what source it comes, is put into a common pool; and as far as I can see, provided that condition exists, that no credit is given to anybody, and that the actual money wagered is in cash in the machine, it is extremely difficult to say that these outside organisations should not exist. As the House supported the promoters of the 1928 Measure, and the conditions under which it was introduced were quite clearly understood, I should be the first to protest if I thought that its provisions were being exceeded.
We are very anxious to encourage horse-racing and horse-breeding, and to encourage clean sport on the turf, and I still believe that, through the medium of the totalisator and the fund that will flow from it, it is possible to do these things. I am satisfied from the experience we have already gained that the unit of wagering is much less and smaller than it used to be, and that a great many people who used to bet in 10s. are now satisfied to bet in florins. To that extent, we claim that the totalisator has done good. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman who asks leave to introduce this Bill and those who support him do it on conscientious grounds, but it is impossible for the promoters of the 1928 Act to know exactly what is the intention of the hon. Member until his Bill is in print. Therefore, I and my friends do not propose to offer any opposition or—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman should have told me that sooner.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
2140§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Morris, Mr. Haydn Jones, Mr. Foot, Mr. Philip Oliver, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. James Hudson, Mr. Compton and Major McKenzie Wood.