HC Deb 06 November 1934 vol 293 cc927-35

7.46 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 11, line 31, to leave out "five times," and to insert "twice."

The Amendment speaks for itself. This Clause deals with the charges that may be made to bookmakers to enter greyhound tracks. Why the figure "five times" should be in the Bill is a mystery, and I shall be interested to hear the Under-Secretary say what justification there is for it. In paragraphs 253 and 262 of the Royal Commission's Report the Commission expresses very definite views on the question of the charges to be made to bookmakers. The object of the Amendment is to limit the power of owners of greyhound tracks to charge bookmakers more than twice the normal payment by the public for admission. In paragraph 262 they say: At the same time the bookmaker and his equipment occupy more space than a member of the general public, and we think it is reasonable that the management of a course should be allowed to make a charge which represents a fair payment for the space and facilities used by the bookmaker, his assistants and equipment. We suggest that the management should be allowed to charge a bookmaker twice, but not more than twice, the amount charged to a member of the public for admission to the enclosure in which he proposes to make his book. That seems fairly definite. The recommendation had behind it the information supplied by every conceivable type of witness, and as a result of comprehensive examination the Commission fixed upon a fair figure for the bookmaker and for the owners of the course. The Bill states that the track owners shall have no interest in betting. According to the Home Secretary's decision, namely, that they can charge five times the ordinary admission payment, it seems to me that the owners of the track will have great interest in bettors if not in betting. Five times the normal charge seems to be on the excessive side and has some relation to the re-establishment of the totalisator. If you charge 7s. 6d. for admission to an enclosure and then charge the bookmaker 37s. 6d. it is a fairly hefty figure. The charge must be taken to some extent out of the bookmaker's client, and it will probably put the bookmaker at a disadvantage against the totalisator.

I may be told that the Jockey Club have certain arrangements whereby they fix a minimum charge of five times the [normal entrance fee paid by the average punter. That may be true, and may be set down as an example. But there are very few horse race committees in the country which make bookmakers pay five times the charge of admission paid by the ordinary person. The Home Secretary may regard the bookmaker as a very bad lot. I do not subscribe to the opinion that bookmakers are all scoundrels. If they have any politics at all I should think they are good Tories, and for that reason, if for no other, the Home Office ought to have been more generous to their friends. The only point is that the Royal Commission, consisting of intelligent men and women, had all the available information at their disposal. They reached a unanimous conclusion and their recommendation is clear. They thought, and I think, that twice the normal public admission fee is enough. I am hoping that instead of this 150 per cent. on the Commission's recommendation, the Home Office will see their way clear not only to reject the suggestion of an hon. Friend who wants to impose five times the Commission's suggested charge, but that they will see that the track owners do not have too great an interest in the bettors if they are not interested in betting.

7.51 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK

The hon. Member asked me two questions. First of all, he asked why we do not stick to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the charge should be only twice the charge to the public. The answer is very simple. It is that the Royal Commission was dealing with quite a different set of circumstances, in that it did not recommend that the totalisator should be allowed at all on dog tracks. It was dealing with charges as if there were no totalisator. Therefore, the Commission's recommendations on that point cannot possibly be applicable. The second question was, why we had selected "five times," was it because the Jockey Club had some arrangement with the bookmakers? The answer is that "five times" is what this House decided in the case of racecourses for horses. In the Racecourse Betting Act of 1928 the House decided that it was proper to charge the bookmaker an amount not exceeding five times the amount to the public. We have adopted exactly the same principle for dog-racing courses, as there are now to be totalisators.

Mr. WILLIAMS

The recommendation of the Commission was that there should be no totalisators on dog tracks, and, therefore, no competition for the bookmaker. As there is now to be a competitor in the shape of the totalisator, clearly that increases the value of my submission.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. PIKE

I would like to ask the Under-Secretary again to consider the Amendment, although, had I moved an Amendment, I should have made the charge considerably less than the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) seeks to make it. Actually what will happen here is not that the bookmaker will be charged five times the amount that the public is charged, but will be charged five times the highest amount that the public is charged. We all know that on some tracks in the Provinces the highest amount paid is 3s. 6d.

Captain CROOKSHANK

My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension there. The bookmaker is not necessarily charged five times the highest admission fee that is charged to any part of the track. It is only "not exceeding five times the charge" for the part of the enclosure that he is entering. If he goes into the cheapest ring he will not be charged five times the admission fee to the most expensive enclosure, but five times the amount of the admission to the particular ring that he enters.

Mr. PIKE

I quite recognise that the wording of the Clause is the highest charge made to members of the public for admission to that part of the track.

Captain CROOKSHANK

Exactly.

Mr. PIKE

After all, if people are going to bet with bookmakers, bookmakers have to be provided, say, in Tattersall's, in the same sense as in the open ring. The bookmaker in Tattersall's performs no different service from the bookmakers in the open ring. He is laying the odds, although he may be laying them to bigger amounts. The bookmaker in Tattersall's might be regarded as a more creditable person. We do not regard bookmakers in Tattersall's as people who are likely to welsh the public, although on a very few occasions they have been known to get away from there without meeting their obligations. On whatever part of the track the bookmaker takes his pitch he is performing the same service. If the highest price of admission on any given track is 10s. 6d., and the lowest-priced enclosure on the same track is 1s., it is unfair to charge one man 52s. 6d. to do the business for which another man is charged only 5s. It is drawing a class distinction not so much between two types of bookmakers as between two types of persons with whom the bookmakers are trading.

To charge five times the public admission fee is extremely unreasonable. Everyone knows that bookmakers are business men, wherever they are. If those in Tattersall's receive a bet which their book cannot carry for the moment, they just send out what is called a "tic-tac" to search the course for a bookmaker with whom they can lay off a part of that bet. It will probably be found that the bookmaker established in a cheaper ring, who has had to pay only 5s. for admission, is actually doing the bulk of the business of the bookmaker who is compelled to pay 52s. 6d. because he is in Tattersall's. The figure in the Bill is far too high. It might mean, as has been said, that the public will be filched of certain odds to which they are entitled, and it might lead to other activities which we do not like to associate with the honourable business of the bookmaker. I believe that in 90 cases out of 100 in this country bookmakers are people carrying on a creditable business and as a creditable business we ought to respect it. Why should we penalise a person because he has to carry on his trade? That is all this proposal means. I may be a man with 10 times as much as the bookmaker but because the bookmaker goes into the same part of the dog track as I do in order to satisfy my desires, this Clause would compel him to pay five times the admission fee which is charged to me.

I do not think that is a very acceptable proposal in connection with legislation of this description. I feel sure that the Home Secretary has not given full consideration to the effect of this provision. It means that while you are trying to get from the bookmakers more than you are entitled to, you are going to create a position in which perhaps 25 bookmakers will form a company for the pur pose of attending to one track and 24 of them will go into the cheapest ring while one will be delegated to pay the 50s. or whatever the charge may be for the dearer part of the track and that one will transact all his business by "tic tac" methods through the others who are in the cheaper parts. We do not want to have evasion of payment of the legitimate price or evasion of the law and if the Home Secretary can see his way to substitute "twice" for "five times" in this Clause he will more or less meet the requirements of the bookmaking fraternity, just as he has met the requirements of those who are going to be responsible for the totalisator and create a happier understanding with the bookmakers in regard to this legislation.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH

I agree with the Amendment but not with some of the statements of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike). I never knew before that he was an expert on "tic-tac" methods.

Mr. PIKE

I never said that I was.

Mr. SMITH

At any rate, the hon. Member told the Committee what the bookmakers were going to do if this concession were not made to them.

Mr. PIKE

I was suggesting a possibility.

Mr. SMITH

Whether you alter this "five times" to "twice" or not, you will not in practice get the big bookmakers to go into the cheaper rings. As a rule they go to the rings where there is the most money and as a rule they do not make books for the benefit of the punters but in order to make some money for themselves. The Under-Secretary said that five times the ordinary amount had been adopted because it was the charge laid down in the 1928 Act but I submit that there is a difference between the present position and the position in 1928. In the first place the Royal Commission has recommended that the charge should only be twice the normal amount. In the second place we are now restoring the use of the totalisator on the greyhound tracks. Why should we, in addition, hand over to the owners of the track five times as much as they are entitled to in respect of these admission charges? We should like to hear from the Home Secretary himself some additional reasons for this proposal.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I am sure that the Under-Secretary when he replied had not fully seized the point as to the changed circumstances following the recommendations of the Royal Commission. He attempted to make a point himself in regard to that but unfortunately it seemed to me that he made it upside down. The recommendation of the Royal Commission was, first, that the totalisator should not be re-established on these tracks, and, secondly, that the track owners should only be permitted to charge bookmakers twice the ordinary entrance fee. The right hon. Gentleman is deserting both recommendations. He is re-establishing the totalisator as a mechanical competitor with the bookmakers on these tracks and, contrary to what the law of logic would seem to require, instead of requiring the bookmakers should then only be charged twice the ordinary fee—and perhaps just the ordinary fee would be sufficient—the right hon. Gentleman increases the recommended charge by 150 per cent. It is said that this is the charge fixed in the Act of 1928. That was the figure recommended for horse racecourses but we know that at horse racecourses generally this charge is not imposed upon the bookmakers because it would create a good deal of trouble. But not so in the case of greyhound companies. We have had some years experience and it was because the Royal Commission heard evidence of how bookmakers had been exploited in all kinds of ways that they made a definite recommendation as to a maximum charge. We do not want to hold up the Bill now but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the question between now and the Report stage in the light of the two recommendations of the Commission and the fact that he has restored the totalisator.

8.8 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I do not think there is any great difficulty in dealing with this point. The truth is, of course, that we have departed from some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission but it is equally clear that the evidence given before that commission showed that extortionate charges were in some cases not so much a matter of the admission charges generally, but were due to the fact that the bookmakers went to a particular part of the course. No doubt as the hon. Member has said we are allowing mechanical competition with the bookmakers on these tracks. On the other hand we are putting the bookmaker in regard to the greyhound racecourses on exactly the same footing as he is in with regard to the horse racecourse and we are prohibiting the managements of these courses from adding to the bookmakers' burden any further extortionate charges. As I see it I think it is reasonable that we should treat the bookmakers in the same way in regard to all courses. Whether the betting is on dogs or on horses seems immaterial and in the circumstances I do not think there is any grievance involved. As a matter of fact, the charges for entrance in some of these cases may be materially less than the entrance charges in connection with horse racing. I think on the whole that we are right, and I propose to stand by that position.

Amendment negatived.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH

I beg to move, in page 11, line 31, after "times," to insert "less entertainments duty." I do not wish to press this Amendment, but I desire the Home Secretary to make it clear whether this charge of five times the ordinary admission includes Entertainments Duty and if so whether any estimate has been made as to how much money the Exchequer is likely to get from the bookmakers.

8.11 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR

It does not seem to me that this involves a very large consideration. The limitation suggested would be very narrow. The rate of Entertainments Duty, as I understand it, varies from something like one halfpenny where the amount of payment for admission exceeds 2d. but does not exceed 2½d. up to 3d. where the amount paid for admission exceeds ls. 0½d. but does not exceed ls. 3d. and a further penny for every 5d. or part of 5d. over is. 3d. It did not seem to us a matter which should be excluded and therefore it is included.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Do we understand then that the track owners can also charge five times the amount of Entertainments Duty as well as five times the normal entrance fee? It is true that as regards those parts of the track where the admission is, say, 6d, and the Entertainments Duty is one penny, this is not a very important matter, but the right hon. Gentleman must also consider it in terms of admission charges running up to 7s. 6d., and in those cases the Entertainments Duty will amount to a considerable sum. The point, therefore, is whether the track owners are to be permitted in all those cases to charge five times the Entertainments Duty. If they are, who is to get it? Will the track owners pay the Government only one-fifth and retain the other four-fifths for themselves or will they pay up all the Entertainments Duty which they charge?

8.14 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR

I confess that I have not gone into the technical point raised by the hon. Member. I had not anticipated the possibility that more than five times the ordinary charge, plus whatever Entertainments Duty would be payable upon that, would be charged and think that that would be reasonable. I will go carefully into the matter between now and the Report stage.

Mr. T. SMITH

On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 (Occupiers of tracks not to have an interest in bookmaking thereon) ordered to stand part of the Bill.