§ Mr. PIKEMay I ask your ruling, Sir, for the general direction of the Committee, in view of the fact that Clause 1 is not coming downstairs for any further consideration, how far we shall be allowed to discuss Amendments that are relevant to Clause 1 or perhaps re-discuss matters that were discussed upstairs so far as they were relevant to Clause 2?
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not quite understand the hon. Member's question. The hon. Member will see as the Debate proceeds what action the Chair takes, but generally speaking, of course, it is quite clear that this Committee has nothing to do with Clause 1, which, I understand, has been Reported to the House.
§ Mr. WISEWe are discussing this Bill under an arrangement not undertaken before, and there are a great number of matters in Clause 1 which are very important to the rest of the Bill. Is it not possible for us to refer to the proceedings upstairs seeing that the bulk of Members have not had the benefit of taking part in the discussions upstairs? Therefore, would it not be possible, as this procedure has never been undertaken before, that the rule should be waived, and we should be entitled not only to refer to but to quote proceedings upstairs in Committee?
§ The CHAIRMANI do not think that I can give any further answer than what I have already given. There is no objection, as far as I know, and no rule against referring to or quoting the proceedings before a Committee upstairs. But this Committee must bear in mind, as I said just now, that Clause 1 is outside the 668 purview of this Committee altogether, except insofar as the Committee has to recognise that Clause 1 has been passed and Reported to the House.
§ Earl WINTERTONDo I understand by this new procedure that this Committee is placed in a different position from what it would be in if Clause 1 had been before the House? It is usual when a Bill is in Committee to make full use of the relevance of another Clause. I was not quite sure whether the result of your Ruling is that Clause 1 is placed in a different position from what it would have been in if it had not been considered in Committee.
§ The CHAIRMANNo; as far as I can see at the moment, this Committee is in exactly the same position as if it had just completed Clause 1.
§ Mr. WISEIf I may give one concrete example, there is very shortly to be discussed an Amendment on the Paper which relates to the fixity of the number of days' racing.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must not expect me to give a Ruling in advance in reference to Amendments which may or may not be called.
§ Mr. WISEAssuming this Amendment were made, and the Committee has not previously heard on how many days racing was possible—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must not expect me to give a, Ruling on any assumption; he must wait until it comes to pass.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSMay I respectfully ask you, Sir Dennis, what is the position in regard to a consequential Amendment to the Clause already passed?
§ The CHAIRMANI do not understand the meaning of a consequential Amendment to a. Clause which has been passed.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSAny Amendment which has already been passed upstairs to Clause 1 if there is a consequential Amendment.
§ The CHAIRMANThere has not been any such Amendment. The Clause has been reported unamended.
§ 4.5 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZONI beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at the end, to insert:
(ii) bookmaking on any race for motor vehicles run on a track licensed by the Royal Automobile Club for the running of motor vehicle races; orI will deal with the Amendment very briefly. The Bill prohibits actual betting at a race meeting like that at Brook-lands. It seems rather hard that a Bill which has really nothing to do with such race meetings should impose such a hardship as that when betting takes place at a track like Brooklands some six times a year and is on an extraordinarily small scale. No one could say in such a case that there is any demoralising influence from off-the-course betting.
§ 4.6 p.m.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank)The hon. and gallant Member moved the Amendment so briefly and so quietly that one would think there was not very much in the Amendment. As a matter of fact, it raises an extremely important point of principle which my right hon. Friend does not seem at all disposed to accept. The hon. and gallant Member says that there are only a few days' racing at Brooklands, and therefore there could not be very much harm in a little on-the-course betting. We are not legislating for to-day, but are casting a Bill which, we hope, will become an Act of Parliament for some considerable duration of time, and we are asked that bookmakers should be allowed on a track licensed by the Royal Automobile Club. I do not wish to ask a question to which the answer is obvious, but why on earth should the Royal Automobile Club have authority to issue licences to anybody at all? It is a perfectly proper body with a very distinguished and large membership, and performs very useful services, but I cannot believe that they are the right people to undertake complicated questions of rules and regulations in regard to licences in the matter of betting.
The Committee must recollect that the Bill is to regulate betting on all tracks, and that to give an exemption to the Royal Automobile Club would be to give something with regard to motor racing which this House has refused to give to a body like the Jockey Club with regard 670 to horse racing. On a previous Bill, Parliament deliberately refused to give the Jockey Club any such powers of control and set up, as the Committee will recollect, a statutory Racecourse Betting Control Board, although with regard to horse racing I should imagine it is a far, more authoritative body than the Royal Automobile Club is with regard to Brooklands. Let it be quite clear what this Amendment, if carried, would mean. It would mean that it would be open to the Royal Automobile Club to give a licence to betting at Brooklands every day of the year. There is no exception at all. Therefore it would mean that this House would be giving to a private body the power to regulate gambling though I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member means anything of the kind. What is more, having done that, it follows that this private irresponsible body—and I hope no one thinks that I am saying anything derogatory of the Royal Automobile Club; I merely say that this is not a function for it to discharge—would be in a position to determine in what circumstances certain conduct would or would not be considered a criminal offence, because that is part of the condition under which the betting would be carried on.
I know that there is a new Clause later on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member to give effect to some of the ideas he has in mind, but the details would require very drastic overhauling even if the Committee were prepared on this Clause to give the Royal Automobile Club this authority, and a moment's reflection will show that this function had much better be left in the Bill, and not given to a private body of that kind.
§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZONIn the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 4.10 p.m.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour)I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, after "clay," to insert "if."
This Amendment and the following Amendments in lines 16 and 20 are purely drafting. They are intended to make it quite clear that if the occupier of a track wishes to take advantage of proviso (ii), 671 in Sub-section (1) of this Clause, he must comply with both paragraphs, that is to say (a) and (b).
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 16, leave out "if".
§ Leave out "calendar".
§ In line 20, leave out "if".—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
§ 4.12 p.m.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment—in page 2, line 26, leave out from "days," to the first "on," in line 28 —standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) and other hon. Members, is one which I am not inclined to select on the ground that I find it difficult to understand exactly What it means or what the effect of it would be, but I gather that it has some relation to Clause 9 which they desire to have left out of the Bill. If that is so, it is a matter which probably could be left until we come to the discussion on Clause 9, but if the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff wishes to do so, I will give him an opportunity of explaining the Amendment as it stands.
§ 4.13 p.m.
Captain ARTHUR EVANSI am much obliged for your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and I respectfully submit this point, that the principle of the fixity of days is raised in Clause 9 for the first time, though it is also mentioned in Clause 2, and the words I desire to omit by my Amendment are—
appointed in accordance with this Part of this Act as the days on which betting facilities may be provided.If Clause 9 were subsequently omitted from the Bill, these words would have no sense at all, and as this is the first opportunity of raising the principle of the fixity of days, it was thought advisable to put down an Amendment at this stage.
§ Mr. HANNONWill it not be difficult to discuss Clause 9 if these words are retained in the Clause?
§ 4.14 p.m.
§ Sir BASIL PETOUnder Clause 1, -which we have already passed, there can: be no betting by way of book-making on a Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sunday. Then, even if Clause 9 were 672 taken out of the Bill, these words would still be necessary.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Baronet has not covered the whole point concerned in this matter. With regard to what the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) said as to the inability to discuss Clause 9 when we come to it if we left in these words in this Clause, I do not think that is the case at all. It would be an absurd limit to which to push the Rule to say that a subsequent Clause should not be considered because of some definite reference to it in an earlier Clause. The hon. Members therefore need not, I think, fear that their arguments on Clause 9 will be curtailed as a result of passing these words in Clause 2. In these circumstances, I am only confirmed in the opinion which I at first expressed, that these are not Amendments properly to be selected here, and the necessity for altering this Clause in view of what may be done in Clause 9 only justifies our procedure in which we have a Report stage. Then will be the time to make Amendments here which may be rendered necessary by something done on Clause 9.
§ Mr. HANNONDo I understand that when we come to Clause 9 there will be full freedom for debate in regard to the particular points brought to the notice of the Committee in this Amendment, and that we shall not be precluded from a fullness of discussion by these words being accepted in the text of the Bill?
§ The CHAIRMANI prefer to put it in another way. The discussion on Clause 9 will not be curtailed or prejudiced by reason of these Amendments not having been selected at this stage.
Captain EVANSDo I gather that it is the intention, as soon as the Amendment to Clause 9 is reached, to allow a general discussion on the Amendment that Clause 9 be omitted from the Bill?
§ The CHAIRMANOh no, certainly not. The hon. and gallant Member knows that to omit a Clause to a Bill is not an Amendment in the Committee stage. He can put down Amendments to the Clause and hon. Members, if they wish to do so, can oppose the Clause.
§ Mr. WISEWould it be possible now to raise a point of Order which I put 673 originally, seeing that you rule that Clause 9, which is the one dealing with fixity of days, will not be called?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I have not ruled that Clause 9 will not be called. I have no power not to call it.
§ 4.18 p.m.
§ Mr. LOGANI beg to move, in page 2, line 33, to leave out the words "and, if he is not the occupier of the track, the occupier also."
This is a manuscript Amendment dealing with an important point. The onus of proving that a contravention had occurred within the knowledge of the occupier would, under the terms of the judicial procedure, devolve upon the prosecution and not upon the defendant. I submit that it would be unfair for the Clause to be carried with the inclusion of these words, and I ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. PIKEAs I explained upstairs, It appears that these words, if left in the Bill, would entail very considerable duties upon the police, and certainly might entail very serious consequences as far as the innocent occupiers are concerned. I admit that there is a proviso which enables an occupier of a track who is charged with an offence by reason of a contravention of this Clause to put up a defence that the contravention occurred without his knowledge. When dog tracks are run on nights when betting is not legalised, there will be betting by touting. There will not be one bookmaker, but thousands of bookmakers walking about the dog tracks each betting with known persons by code methods, and it will be utterly impossible for the occupier of the track to know what is going on between client and client. It will actually be between client and private bookmaker. If you are to haul before the magistrates an occupier of a track simply and solely because, once, twice or three times, these private betting negotiations are discovered to have been carried on, his character will be besmirched and possibly his livelihood will be lost, when he is completely innocent and has done his best to prevent anything of the sort being carried on. The very betting propensities of the average Britisher who visits the dog tracks will demand a certain fraternity springing up on non- 674 betting nights to satisfy his convenience. If you place the onus on the occupier of being responsible for every conversation which goes on between one client and another client, who will be the private bookmaker, it will be putting far too great a responsibility upon his shoulders. It would be far better if these words were left out of the Bill. It is not that the occupier of the track will not do his best to put down betting on non-betting nights—he will—but, if you make him responsible for every bet which takes place on the track, you will drive a very unpalatable and distasteful form of gambling, which does not already exist on the streets, on to the streets of this country, and possibly among the younger generation and the women folk. If the Bill is to prevent the evils of betting from growing, the words should be deleted. The Clause would be improved and the effects of the Bill also if the manuscript Amendment were accepted.
§ 4.23 p.m.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSSo that there shall be no misunderstanding, I wish to repeat on the Floor of the House the statement which I made on the Second Reading, namely, that one can only speak for oneself on the details of this Measure. On general principles there may be agreement, but on certain details hon. Members are at liberty to speak as they like. As to the present Amendment, the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) failed to repeat the provision which follows immediately after the Sub-section to the effect that, if the owner of the track can prove that the contravention took place without his knowledge, he escapes any responsibility. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) and the hon. Member for Attercliffe are stretching their imagination and their optimism if they imagine that greyhound organisations or companies will have greyhound racing on days when there is no betting. They told the Cora-mission very definitely that "unless betting takes place greyhound racing will go out to-morrow morning." Therefore, the assumption lurking behind the Amendment is that associations are merely going to run their greyhounds so that people may see a wonderful bit of sport. I do not think that that will happen. I do not think that hon. Mem- 675 bers need have any fear. If the occupier opened his track and brought out his greyhounds and people went to the track, and there was no intention to bet at all, and then a contravention took place, I should charge the occupier with having invited it, although I do not think that such a thing will happen. I am therefore against the Amendment.
§ 4.25 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)A very similar Amendment was moved in the Committee stage on the first Clause of the Bill, and, as I took leave to point out to hon. Gentlemen, if these words were left out, and the proviso which really goes with it, as the hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out, were left out, the result would be that the occupier, even if he had any amount of knowledge that betting was going on, would not be guilty of an offence. This has nothing to do with the principle of the Bill and is one of those things which, when studied, must appear to be ridiculous, for there is not anybody really who can believe that the occupier will be allowed to go scot free when possibly he is the person reaping a great deal of financial advantage from carrying on the racing tracks. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the occupier will be made responsible for every conversation on the track. He will unless he can prove that he did not know about the conversation, and, if he is prepared to discharge the onus provided for by the proviso, he will not be guilty of an offence.
I think that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway hardly realised the implication of one thing he said. He finished up by saying that the effect of these words would be to drive on to the streets a very undesirable form of gambling. Let us just see what that means. It means that you are going to drive on to the streets something, according to the hon. Member's hypothesis, which the occupier does not know anything about. If it be done so quietly and secretly that the occupier knows nothing about it, I cannot believe that it will be a very widespread practice or worth talking about as something which will be driven on to the streets to make the occupier guilty of the offence. I should think that everybody, whether in support of the 676 principle of the Bill or not, will agree with me that the occupier could not possibly be allowed to escape the hand of the law merely because he was the occupier, when all the time he might be a participant in the profits of the illegal practice.
§ 4.28 p.m.
§ Mr. PIKEWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply his mind to this possible event arising? The occupier of a track unconsciously permits the running of a track upon which betting takes place on two or three occasions on non-betting days. This man is apprehended under this Clause as being guilty of allowing the contravention of the Act. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that any occupier, no matter how not guilty he may be, can go before a court of magistrates on three occasions and still receive their admission that he was not guilty of a contravention under the proviso? Is there any possibility of the same man being charged on three occasions with an offence of which lie is personally not guilty and defending himself under the proviso of the Act and getting away with it? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that that will be possible?
§ 4.29 p.m.
§ Brigadier - General CRITCHLEYI should like to oppose the Amendment. Unless the Clause stands as provided it will leave a great loophole. It is rather a pity that the question of days of betting was not confined to days of racing, but, as that cannot be, I think that the strongest penalties should be laid down in respect of any betting found to take place on days on which betting is not allowed. Therefore, I oppose the Amendment.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. WISEThe hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said that it was inevitable that days of racing would take place on which there would be no betting. The Committee ought to know that there is a custom of running trial races on dog tracks, and under this Clause as it stands if one of the attendants employed on that dog track chose to make a private book on the result of the trials his employer would be faced with the possibility of having to prove that he had no knowledge of the 677 making of that book. The Committee ought to bear in mind all the implications of the Clause, and the one which I have just mentioned is worthy of consideration. Betting could take place and certainly will take place even on non-betting days. It is ludicrous to suppose that where you have an assembly of Englishmen to see a race, trial or otherwise, there will not be betting. In the case that I have mentioned the employer would be faced with the necessity of proving that he had no knowledge of the betting.
With all due respect to the Attorney-General, I think that the constant demand made upon the citizen to prove his innocence, leaving it occasionally to the prosecution to prove his guilt, is very dangerous. I suppose we shall shortly see the Attorney-General defending a procedure under which in a murder charge the judge will simply say to the accused: "Prove to me that you did not kill him, otherwise you will be hanged." That is exactly what the Attorney-General is asking the Committee to do. He is asking them to compel a man to prove his innocence instead of putting the onus on the prosecution to prove his guilt. That is a dangerous proceeding. It is true that it is not without precedent, but wherever the precedents exist they are bad ones. It is right that the House of Commons should occasionally stand up as a protection for the accused person. Hon. Members opposite on both sides of the Gangway protested very vehemently the other day against increasing the rigours of the law. I hope that we shall find them as zealous in defence of possibly equally innocent citizens who are charged with betting as they were in the defence of citizens who may be charged with the offence of sedition.
§ 9.34 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALI should not like to allow one statement of the hon. Member to go without a reply. He says that the Attorney-General may one day be supporting procedure in a murder case where the man has to prove himself not guilty. That seems to me to be very fantastic. The hon. Member has gone so far in search of an illustration for his argument as to reduce it to an absurdity. If he puts that forward as his argument then his case is absurd. He has much better argument than an illus- 678 tration of that sort. The reason why the occupier is the person who is to be saddled with the prima facie responsibility is because he is responsible for looking after the racecourse of which he is the occupier. He is the person in charge of the course and under whom the employés work. It is not a question of a bet between A and B but a question of bookmaking being carried on on a course illegally. We can, with some degree of fairness, without doing any violence to the administration of our criminal system, say that if the occupier of a course is so unfortunate as to have bookmaking going on upon his course it is not a great hardship if he is asked to satisfy the court that he knew nothing about it. Otherwise, the consequences which were mentioned a few moments ago will follow. It is much more satisfactory to make the occupier face the responsibility of saying that he did not know bookmaking was going on than to punish other people for carrying on an offence of which the occupier had knowledge, which would be the inevitable consequence of leaving out the words.
§ Mr. WISECan the Attorney-General tell us if there is any legal definition of bookmaking? Under the law if a man took a bet from more than two or three persons he would in fact be making a book and carrying on bookmaking.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERALIf the hon. Member will look on page 16 of the Bill he will find the definition that he desires.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSThis discussion is very interesting, but we have already put in the Bill so far as betting is concerned almost identical words. It seems to me rather absurd to take out words at this point when they have already been passed by the Committee upstairs.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ 4.37 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYSI want to raise a question of importance on this Clause. I happen to be one of the Members of Parliament for the county of Surrey, in which the great racing track at Brooklands is situated, and I should like to ask whether motor racing is to be singled out as a 679 special category for the purposes of the Bill. As I read the Bill—I think there is a good deal of confusion about it—it would be possible for the licensing authority to refuse to license Brooklands for a racing track if any betting took place there. I do not know whether motor racing is regarded as a sport or not. To many people it is; to me it is not. In a matter of this importance we ought to have a clear pronouncement from the Government whether betting will be prohibited at Brooklands motor racing track or any other recognised racing track. There is a good deal of apprehension in the matter and if my right hon. Friend could give me an assurance on the point he would allay the anxiety.
§ 4.39 p.m.
§ Sir J. GILMOURIt has been made quite clear that the limit of betting days for ordinary bookmaking will apply to that and other courses where there are other sports. The fact remains that the Government have deliberately decided that the totalisator shall not be extended further than horse racing courses, where it exists at present, and dog racing tracks in the future. That is the limit and it will not be available for other forms of sport. I think that answers my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSThe reply of the Home Secretary only relates to the totalisator. He has not answered the question as to the position of Brooklands in respect of betting if this Bill becomes law.
§ Sir J, GILMOURThe position of Brooklands will be the same as any other place where betting takes place. It will be limited as on other courses. The only difference is that neither Brooklands nor other sporting places will have the totalisator. I want to make that point clear.
§ Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASSIf the local authorities decide that they do not want to allow any betting to take place on the motor racing course at Brooklands can they prohibit it altogether?
§ 4.42 p.m.
Captain CROOKSHANKThe local authority or, to be more accurate, the licensing authority is only concerned with licences for betting purposes. You can 680 have as many races as you like of all kinds anywhere, but the question is betting. With regard to betting, the licensing authorities, as my right hon. Friend has explained, will license certain days on which betting and bookmaking will be allowed. On the other days events may take place if it is so desired but there can be no betting. Totalisators under the Bill are only allowed for horse racing courses and dog race tracks and there will be no permission to have totalisators anywhere else. My right hon. Friend put it as clearly as possible, but if the hon. and gallant Member wants it to be put again we will repeat it. I think it is quite clear.
§ 4.43 p.m.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSAs one to whom it is not at all clear I should like further explanation. The Under-Secretary says that it is clear. We are talking not about dog racing but motor racing, and the hon. Member refers us by inference to the Clauses of the Bill. Let us suppose that the Surrey County Council have fixed appointed days for Wimbledon and that for the sake of argument they have fixed Monday and Wednesday. Those automatically would be the appointed days for Brooklands. At Brooklands they race on Saturdays. It would appear that because the licensing authority, for the convenience of Wimbledon, have fixed Monday and Wednesday the people at Brooklands will not be permitted to bet on Saturday. Is that explanation - perfectly clear or not?
§ 4.44 p.m.
Captain CROOKSHANKThe licensing authority under the Bill will lay down certain days in their area on which betting can take place at the tracks. Bookmaking will only be allowed to take place on the licensed day. The totalisator is only to be allowed for horses and dogs and nowhere else. The question as to the particular days that may be allotted by the licensing authorities for the particular interests who have sporting events on tracks falls to be discussed in the later stages of the Bill.
§ Sir W. BRASSWould it be possible for the licensing authority to set apart two days of the week for dog racing in Surrey and one day, an entirely different day, say, Saturday, for motor racing? That is what we want to know.