§ 8.29 p.m.
§ Mr. R. J. RUSSELL
I beg to move, in page 15, line 1, to leave out "For the avoidance of doubts."
This is the first of a series of Amendments which have as their purpose to change the Clause from a positive to a negative, to prohibit the collection of offthe-course bets for the totalisator on the racecourse, and to prohibit the payment by the board of commission for such collection. Parliament never intended that the totalisator should be used for the purpose suggested in this Clause.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Amendment I called is in page 15, line 1, to leave out "For the avoidance of doubts." I understood the hon. Member would move it as introductory to later Amendments.
§ Mr. RUSSELL
Yes, the Amendments which follow are consequential upon it. Parliament intended strictly cash betting on the totalisator on the course, and there is no sanction for commission being paid as suggested in this Clause. It is therefore clear that to argue that the totalisator is a better betting service is irrelevant, just as argument from the financial position is also irrelevant. The Clause is a new facility, which we feel will lead to increased betting off the course.
§ 8.31 p.m.
§ Mr. ISAAC FOOT
The Home Secretary will be aware that the point that has been raised by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has given rise to a good deal of public concern. I was not a Member of the House at the time the Racecourse Betting Act was passed, 940 but I have tried to acquaint myself with what was said during the Debates. I think there is no doubt that the most definite assurances were given at that time that the Act was only to apply to the operation of the totalisator upon the racecourse itself, and that it was never to be used for the obtaining of bets taken off the course. I am aware, of course, that the matter has come before the courts since those assurances were given, and that there has been given a decision that is inconsistent with many of the things that were said in the House. I am sorry that the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) is not in his place, for this is a point on which he has laid much stress from time to time. We feel that though a case was made out during the Debates on the Racecourse Betting Act for the setting up of the totalisator for the maintenance of horse breeding in this country and so forth, there was no case made out for touting for bets off the course.
I can understand that if the convenience of the betting public were to be met something might be done in that direction, but undoubtedly it is something more than convenience that is being met at the present time. Inducements are being held out, commission is being paid, and under the operation of the Racecourse Betting Act every effort is now being made to extend betting among the public. That is the result of what has taken place in recent years. I have no doubt that the intention of Parliament is being flouted as that intention was expressed in the course of the Debates, and I think the public conscience will demand that there shall not be behind all the prestige and the standing of the Betting Control Board a general temptation to bet throughout the country. That inducement undoubtedly has been strengthened under present conditions, and it is because we regard those conditions with some alarm that the Amendment has been put down. We regret that the Home Secretary has found it necessary to put this Clause in the Bill, but it is because we think that what has happened in recent years is contrary to the expressed assurances upon which Parliament allowed that Act to pass that we submit this Amendment.
§ 8.35 p.m.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
I support this Amendment for many of the reasons ad- 941 vanced by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. I. Foot). Two Amendments are presumably being taken together, and they involve the general question of Tote Investors, Limited, and the discussions which took place in 1928. I understand that my original Amendment was passed over on account, presumably, of some legal decision which has been given on this question, but it may be recalled that that case is not yet concluded, and at this moment it may be on its way to another place. Therefore, I think the Committee would do well to regard this question as sub judice, and Tote Investors, Limited, as not having been either legalised or rendered illegal. At no time during the Debates in 1928, so far as one can see, did the Minister then in charge give the House the idea that anything was being dealt with apart from the introduction of the totalisator to horse racecourses. Let me turn to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, whose report we take as our betting Bible, because they are really the only people in a position to express an effective point of view upon what Parliament did and what Parliament intended doing in 1928. In paragraph 422, on page 123, after stating that the Act of 1928 was, according to the preamble, to be an Act to amend the Betting Act, 1853, to legalise the use of totalisators on certain racecourses, and to make further provision with regard to betting thereon, they say:So far as we are aware the promoters of the Bill never stated publicly that it was proposed that the board's activities should extend to betting off the course, nor was it ever suggested in Parliament that the, terms of the Bill would enable the board to attract off-the-course betting to the board's totalisators. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is any express Parliamentary sanction for this aspect of the board's activities.That seems to be very clear. The Promoter of the Bill in 1928 never referred, specifically or otherwise, to the possibility of the extension of the totalisator to off-the-course betting. The Commission say there may be good reasons why this off-the-course betting should be considered, and why the totalisator should be made a success, namely, that money may be made available to help horse breeding, and so forth. In paragraph 426 they say: 942As regards the second argument, we are not directly concerned with the board's financial position.They are not concerned, for instance, as to whether the Betting Control Board is a profitable undertaking or not. They go on:So far as we are aware, however, there was no public statement by the promoters of the Act of 1928 that the board intended to attract off-the-course bets, still less that the board's finances would be dependent upon the receipt of off-the-course money.Subsequent events may have proved that without off-the-course money the Betting Control Board would become defunct. I do not intend to deal with the finances of that organisation, because they will come under consideration before the conclusion of the Debate, but I want to hold as nearly as one can to the discoveries made by the Royal Commission, who were appointed to make these discoveries, and examine the evidence, and I intend to rely on the recommendations of the Commission. On page 125 the Commission said further:It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the board's activities would be directed towards promoting au increase in the flow of betting from off the course to the totalisator.That is, assuming their business was not really a financial success. Again, in paragraph 430, they say:We believe that the extension of the board's operations to off-the-course betting is likely to result in attracting fresh bettors and to lead to a spread of the betting habit. We also think that the objections to the provision of gambling facilities by the State would apply with special force to a statutory body with branches throughout the country for the collection of bets.It is obvious that if, as a result of this Bill, Tote Investors, Limited, is legalised, there will be a great increase in off-thecourse betting and a great increase in the income from off-the-course bets transmitted to the totalisator. Someone said of the Home Secretary in Committee that while he was restricting facilities for greyhound racing, with all of which I agree, he would be establishing totalisator clubs all over the country under this Clause 17. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but I fear he has not looked into this matter deeply enough, or he would be obliged to see the inevitable development which would follow from legalising the power to collect money all over the country and transmit it to the 943 totalisator on the course. It is obvious that in a short time we shall have in every town and large village in the country premises at which money will be collected and transmitted to the course, and by that simple process—what is called credit betting—the whole thing will be legalised, if Clause 17 of this Bill goes through in its present form. That was not intended in 1928, either by the promoters of the Bill or by the Government; and it must be recalled that the Government had to adopt that baby as their own, otherwise it would have died stillborn—[Laughter.] That is an Irishism. I meant that the baby would have been stillborn. The Government adopted that private Bill. They brought it from the Committee and took charge of it down here, negotiated it through the House, and allowed the House to believe that it was designed exclusively to provide an alternative means of betting on horse racecourses.
It is obvious from the accounts submitted to the Government that the board made a very bad mess of their business during the first two or three years. I am not saying their business methods were either good, bad or indifferent. It may have been that they were superoptimists when they started to erect their machines. But I say that before we readily grant these extended powers it would be as well for the Home Secretary and the Government to see all the implications of their action. As I have said, if the business of Tote Investors, Limited, is legalised we are likely to have offices in every town and large village to collect money, because that would be perfectly legal. As to bad debts, Tattersall's will see that there are not many bad debts if they can avoid it—it is quite an easy proposition. So, while the fellow who collects a few shillings in the street is locked up and fined £5 or £50, the man in the office who collects £100 or £500 and transmits that money to the course will "get away with it," and the right hon. Gentleman will be helping him by this Clause.
I come to the final recommendation on this subject of the Royal Commission. Be it understood that these men and women were strictly impartial. They admitted at the very commencement of their deliberations that betting was a fact, and could not be put down 944 altogether, and that they could only control betting where evil social consequences were accruing. As they were impartial, upon examining all the evidence which they had before them they were in a position to express an opinion as to what any future Government ought or ought not to do. This is what they said in the final recommendation:
"We therefore recommend that the board's powers should not include either:
That seems very conclusive. No other argument need be advanced. It is clear that as a result of their comprehensive review of the situation, they were satisfied that Tote Investors, Limited, was an undesirable extension and that sooner or later some Government would feel the ill effects of legalising Tote Investors, Limited. It is only a few short months since some hon. Members were almost trembling because of the development of the tote clubs, which grew like mushrooms in connection with horse racing in this country. Had means not been found to render those tote clubs illegal, there would have been no need for people to go to a horse race at Epsom, Sandown, Doncaster, Liverpool, or anywhere else, because in every village they could have placed their bets without any of the expense of going to the course. That would have been a sad day for the horse breeders and those interested in horse racing. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to do with Tote Investors, Limited, what nearly happened a year ago through the instrumentality of the tote clubs, he will be charged as the one Minister who did more damage to what some people regard as a healthy sport than any other Minister. I hope he will not commit himself and that he will agree to re-examine the whole question of the totalisator and off-the-course betting, with its marvellous possibilities of evil. I am pretty sure that when the Report stage is reached, we shall find the Home Secretary unwilling to extend off-the-course betting.
- (ii) power to set up offices off the course for the purpose of receiving bets off the course and transmitting them to the course; or
- (ii) power to remunerate or offer special terms to other organisations or persons in consideration of the latter receiving bets and transmitting them to the totalisator."
§ 8.49 p.m.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I did not intend to intervene at this early stage of the dis- 945 cussion and upon a question in regard to which many Members have different opinions. I look at this problem from what I regard as the technical point of view. I think we should be in agreement that when tote clubs as we knew them sprang up they were a very great evil. Fortunately, as the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said, we have been enabled to find means of stopping them. What remains? There remains a system which has grown up in this country of people betting on credit. I am taking the line, on behalf of the Government, that it is reasonable that the public should have the alternative of betting either with the bookmaker or with a totalisator. If that be the right view, —and up to now that has been the view which Parliament has accepted—it is surely reasonable that the same kind of privilege as the credit bettor may have of placing his bets by telephone or telegraph with a bookmaker upon the course, should be extended to those who desire to put their credit debts with the totalisator in preference to the bookmaker.
When I am told that what we are doing by this Measure is to set up a large number of offices, comparable with the tote clubs, I say that is a clear misunderstanding of the terms of this Measure. We know that there are bookmakers who receive credit bets in almost every town in the country. We know, too, that it is illegal to resort to those places, and under Tote Investors Limited, it is also illegal to resort. I understand that the transfer, with Tote Investors Limited, has been mainly a transfer of such credit bets from the bookmakers to the tote. Be that as it may, what we have endeavoured to do in this Bill is to make as little distinction as possible between the one and the other. Credit bets are limited to certain classes of people who can get credit. It is not so great an evil as some of the other forms of betting. 'We are taking this view, which I think is a common sense one, and, in doing so, we are proposing no more than what is the present condition under the law.
§ 8.52 p.m.
§ Mr. MOLSON
I have listened to what the Home Secretary has had to say upon the subject, but I am afraid he has left me completely unconvinced. I do not wish to repeat all that has been said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac 946 Foot) or the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) upon this subject. I was not a Member of the House at the time the Act of 1928 was passed, but from what I have read of the Debates and from what the then Home Secretary said upon the subject it was clearly the intention of Parliament, when totalisators were legalised upon racecourses, that that did not mean that there should be facilities throughout the length and breadth of the country for credit betting upon the totalisator. Since then we have had the Royal Commission which went into the whole question, and, as the hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out, have made recommendations which are entirely contrary to the Clause which is under discussion. When the Committee are being asked to legalise credit betting on totalisators, in conflict, as I maintain, with the past intention of Parliament and with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the Committee are entitled to consider what the administration of the Racecourse Betting Control Board has been. We are now being asked to give facilities to that board for obtaining bets from a source from which most people, until the recent decision in the Law Courts, believed that they were not entitled to draw. In spite of what the Home Secretary has said, I suggest that the only possible effect of this Clause being in the, Bill is that a body which is at the present time next door to insolvent will be propped up by the gift of an additional source of income. In drawing the attention of the Committee to the record of that board, if we find that in what it has done in the past it has shown itself extraordinarily inefficient, that is, again, a reason why we should not grant it additional powers.
I have taken a little trouble to look at the five reports which have been presented to the Home Secretary and to Parliament, and I find that until the last year the board's debt has increased continuously. It has raised no capital, but has financed itself by advances from a bank. In 1929, its debt was £466,000. In 1930, it had risen to £1,811,000, in 1931 to £2,206,000, in 1932 to £2,274,000, and in 1933 it had been reduced, if I understand the rather difficult balance sheets correctly, by about £6,000 to £2,268,000. It would appear that the bank which has advanced this money has become increas- 947 ingly nervous. The money was described in the balance sheets up to 1931 as advances. In 1932 it was described as secured advances. In the last report presented we are told that a portion of these secured advances has been converted into a debenture, and under this debenture the whole income of the Racecourse Betting Control Board is to be devoted to the repayment of principal, before depreciation and before interest upon the advance—
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
May I ask whether a restriction is also placed upon grants for the benefit of the breeding of horses?
§ Mr. MOLSON
I have no information on that point., but, in view of the fact that they did make grants this year, at a time when they are so insolvent, I assume that they are more or less in the hands of the bank, and that they have been allowed a ticket-of-leave to make a grant of something like £5,000 for the purpose for which they were originally set up. Until this year not a penny, so far as I have been able to detect, has been paid for that purpose, but a ticketof-leave has been given to the extent of about £5,000, perhaps in the hope that this Committee would be willing to give them increased powers in order that the bank may receive its interest and the horse-breeding interests may derive their grants in future.
This last year no provision at all was made for depreciation on their totalisators, but they did, after making no allowance for depreciation, make a profit of 2.6 per cent.; so that, if any reasonable depreciation had been allowed, the year would have ended in a loss and not in a profit. If all this debt had been incurred for the purpose of what was represented to-day by revenue-producing plant, then, indeed, it would not be a matter of great importance even if the debt was very high. The accounts, which I have been going over as best I can, are not very clear, but I notice that the accounts have been presented in a form approved by the Home Secretary, and although he accepts no political responsibility for the transactions of the Racecourse Betting Control Board, I hope that he will lay down rules which will require the board to present accounts which enable the House of Commons and the country to see exactly what the position is.
948 This year, for the first time, we find what the total value of the redundant assets is. It amounts to a little over £399,000. It is some shillings short of £400,000, and I have no desire to overstate my case. I notice that in the report no reference is made to that figure; all that is mentioned there is that this year the board has thought it right, in order to present accounts which will make quite clear its financial position, to set up this Redundant Assets Account, including an expenditure of £4,165 upon leaseholds. If, in any ordinary limited liability company, losses amounting to a few shillings short of £400,000 had been sustained, and in the report there was only a reference to a loss on leaseholds of £4,165, I think the shareholders of that company would have some complaint against the directors, and would say that the report at any rate was lacking in frankness.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member unnecessarily, but it is quite clear that I could not allow a reply to all these criticisms which he has been making of the general accounts of the board.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must adhere to the Ruling which I have given. The hon. Member who is in possession of the Committee is, I think, quite capable of protecting himself with regard to that point.
§ Mr. MOLSON
I bow to your decision about these accounts. I only referred to them because they purport to be an account of the operations of the board, and I trust I shall be within the Rules of Order, as the Clause we are now discussing is to enable the Racecourse Betting Control Board to draw bets from off the course, in referring to some extent to their administration under the Act of 1928.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I have told the hon. Member that I was unwilling to interrupt him. My real reason for doing so was that he seemed to me to be indulging in criticism of these accounts to which he was inviting the Home Secre- 949 tary to reply, and I certainly could not allow replies to detailed criticisms in regard to the accounts and general affairs of the board. Therefore, the hon. Member, although he was entitled, no doubt, to refer to his opinion of the management or mismanagement of the affairs of the board, could not go into a detailed criticism of it to which he could not expect any reply.
§ Mr. MOLSON
I entirely accept your Ruling. There is, either in this report or in the first one, a note that the accounts have been presented in a form that has been approved by the Home Secretary, and I thought, therefore, that I was entitled to draw attention to the fact that the reports as presented do not in my opinion make very clear exactly what the position is. But I bow most willingly to your decision on this point, and will not go into any further details. I hope, however, that the Under-Secretary, as I see that the Home Secretary is not now on the bench, will draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the point.
As I have said, I have only referred to the accounts in order to draw attention to the past records of the administration of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. These losses, which at last have been admitted in the accounts, but which have been known to everyone who has been interested in the working of the Act of 1928 for a very long time. They were originally incurred because the Racecourse Betting Control Board put up a number of electrical totalisators which did not work. There was a perfectly good instrument, called the Julius instrument, which, for reasons which may be good—I have heard that there are good reasons—the board refused to adopt, and, as a result, they began experiments on their own account, and sank a large sum of money in putting up these new electrical totalisators. In the first place, they experimented for a long time, and as early as the second annual report we find that £104,000 had been spent on experimental plant which was not any longer in use. After that, an instrument was put up at Newmarket.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member seems now to be making certain allegations against the board, the truth or otherwise, or the importance or other- 950 wise, of which will not affect the Amendment.
§ Mr. MOLSON
As I understand the Act of 1928, Parliament set up a statutory body in order to give facilities to backers of racehorses to back otherwise than with bookmakers. It is the submission of those who are opposing the Clause that it was not at that time the intention of Parliament to enable that statutory board to draw bets from backers off the course. Subsequently, the Royal Commission advised that they should not be given that power. Under the Bill as put forward that statutory body is going to be given power to draw bets from backers off the course. According to the administration of that statutory body will obviously depend the return which the backers will obtain from that instrument and, therefore, when Parliament is being asked to extend the scope of operations of that statutory board, I submit that it is proper for the Committee to consider whether it has efficiently or inefficiently discharged the duties which have previously rested upon it.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I must compliment the hon. Member on his ingenuity, but I am inclined to think that his arguments are somewhat remote.
§ Mr. MOLSON
I will try most loyally to keep within your Ruling, Sir. The result has been that there has been put up in different parts of the country a. number of electrical totalisators which are now lying derelict. My second criticism of their administration is that, even in the cases in which they were fortunate enough to put up electrical totalisators which would work, they put them up upon such small racecourses that there was not the least possibility of their proving a financial success in any circumstances at all. At present there are electrical totalisators at Newmarket, Newbury, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Nottingham, and there are aban-doned totalisators at Cheltenham, Hamilton Park, Ayr, Pontefract, and Reading. I am not a very keen racing man in spite of the fact that I represent the Doncaster division, and until I was making researches into this question of the totalisator I had not so much as known that there were race meetings in some of these towns. In addition there are permanent totalisators at Hurst Parks 951 —another case where a machine was put up which originally failed to work and had to be replaced at great expense—and at Ascot, where the capital had to be supplied by the Ascot racecourse because by that time the Racecourse Betting Control Board had almost exhausted its credit.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not know if the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in the House, but I have already said that I think the hon. Member's arguments, though he may be able to explain their relevance, are getting rather remote. Will he try to devote himself a little more closely to the actual point of the Amendment?
Captain A. EVANS
Are we to understand, Sir, that under your ruling those of us who are anxious to reply in detail to my hon. Friend's criticisms will be ruled out of order if we attempt to do so?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he was in the House, knows that when I first interrupted the hon. Member in possession of the Committee I told him that I could not allow detailed answers to be given to some of the criticisms that he was raising. That, perhaps, shows that, although it may be possible technically to say that his remarks are relevant, they are not of very much value. I hope he will not think for a moment that I meant that to be offensive. What I meant was really, repeating what I have said before, that they seem to me to be criticisms so remote from the question at issue that they could not have very much weight on the question whether the Amendment should be accepted or not.
§ Mr. MOLSON
I have for the last two years been looking for an opportunity of raising this matter, which I regard as of great public importance. It has' not been possible to do so before. I admit that I have found this to be the only opportunity within the Rules of the House that I have had.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid the hon. Member must realise that this is not an opportunity which gives him very much 952 scope. I really must ask him to devote his speech to the Amendment rather than to the point that he apparently wants to raise—a general criticism of the conduct of the Board.
§ Mr. MOLSON
In that case, I will conclude my observations on this point by saying that under this Clause a body which has not been a conspicuous success in the past is being given powers which it was not the intention of Parliament to give it in 1928 and which are in co[...]flict with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I hope the Home Secretary will be prepared to reconsider the line that he has taken on this point. There are many of us who feel that a great deal may be said for giving the backer the option of going either to the bookmaker or to the totalisator. But with the legalisation of the operations conducted by Tote Investors, Ltd., we are to have facilities brought to every town and village in the country to people to back with the totalisator on credit; there will be every inducement to Tote Investors, Ltd., to encourage more people to bet on the totalisator, and, if there be any underlying principle in this Bill, I understand it is, that, while not wishing to interfere unduly with the liberty of the individual, the Government are anxious not to give any facilities to private interests working for profit to exploit the gambling propensities of the public.
§ 9.14 p.m.
§ Sir F. ACLAND
This is a difficult question. It seems to be one in which logic conflicts with right and wrong. I think the Home Secretary is right in wanting, as far as possible, to put totalisator and bookmaker betting in the same position. Credit betting with bookmakers is legal, and he wants to have this declaratory Clause that credit betting with the totalisator is legal. On the other hand, any of us who have investigated the dozens of cases that come to our notice of the breakdown and ruin of lives by betting know that betting is now a greater evil than drink. The temptation put in people's way for credit betting leads to the breakdown and ruin of lives. A man bets more to get back because he cannot pay what he has lost. This Sub-section will make it possible for this not very successful body to pay com- 953 mission to agents whose job it will be to lure, entice and persuade people to bet on credit with totalisators by telling them that they will get a straighter deal and a better chance of getting dog winnings than if they bet with bookmakers. To add to the lures of credit betting is surely a bad thing and one which we ought to avoid unless there be some very much stronger reason for it than the point of logic that you are bound to put the totalisator in the same position as the bookmaker.
§ 9.16 p.m.
§ Captain HEILGERS
It is a little curious that nearly all the support for the Amendment should have come from Members representing the Doncaster area, because Doncaster was the last racecourse in the United Kingdom to set up a totalisator, and there must have been considerable local opposition to it from the very beginning. If the Amendment were, agreed to, it would mean the end of the totalisator. As representing another racing constituency, Newmarket, I realise what a serious blow that would be to racing. Racing is a national sport and a fair and clean sport and very different from greyhound racing. I agree that, despite what is said in this Clause, there might have been some doubt as to the original legality of totalisator investments. Now the legality has been confirmed. We have heard a lot from an hon. Member opposite about mismanagement by the Racecourse Betting Control Board. I wish the hon. Member would realise the difficulties which they have had to face. In every other country racing takes place on certain racecourses a great number of times. In France there is Longchamps and many other courses where there is constant racing, and it is the same at Flemington in Australia, but here the Racecourse Betting Control Board have been faced with very heavy overhead expenses simply because they have had to set up totalisators on courses where there is comparatively little racing. I think that there is only one course where there is more than 16 days racing in a year. It must take a long time at that rate to get back some of those overhead charges. To turn to the point of view which the hon. Baronet expressed, even if totalisator investors spread all over the country, is that such a very great evil?
§ Captain HEILGERS
It would be a true temperance measure to take people off the drink. But, apart from that, the position is that if you had totalisator agencies in every town in England you would find, at any rate, that the men who bet on horse races would be able to get a very much more satisfactory form of betting. I would remind hon. Gentlemen that in the Royal Commission Report it was stated by the man who gave evidence on behalf of Tattersall's Committee that one of the greatest difficulties found by Tattersall's Committee was to get money from some of those agents who went in for the greatest amount of advertising, and, as a rule, those who advertise the most are those who attract the people. There is one thing which has not been mentioned by any Member. It is a recommendation of the Royal Commission. They strongly recommended that cash postal betting should be allowed for the totalisator.
§ Captain HEILGERS
Page 128, recommendation (ix). It says:The board should be allowed to receive cash postal bets at an approved racecourse where a totalisator is in operation, in respect of races being run on that course.If that had been carried into operation, it would have meant a considerable decrease of revenue. They are being deprived of that increase of revenue by the present Bill despite the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The totalisator is absolutely necessary to horse racing, and I believe that even if they get money from off the course it is worth it. The totalisator is beginning to pay, and when it does pay it will mean that horse breeding and our veterinary sciences will get some of the profits which accrue from the totalisator. If there is no totalisator, people will not cease to bet. The only result will he that they will bet with some doubtful agencies.
§ 9.21 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
I have been particularly interested in this part of the Debate, because I happened to be a Member of the Committee upstairs which dealt with the setting up of the Betting 955 Control Board, and the hon. Baronet and I took a little part in handling that very difficult problem. The Home Secretary in this Bill is restricting, as far as be can, betting on dog racecourses. When he delivered his speeches in this House and upstairs that great Scottish character which is reflected in his face came out in all its violence against betting and gambling in all its forms. But in this Clause he is extending facilities for betting on horse racing deliberately. On his right hand is a great Evangelical churchman, and I am wondering what he has to say to these proposals. There is a Baptist preacher next to him. Here we have the trinity —faith, hope and charity—bringing forward a Clause in a Bill to set up, without any doubt at all, agents in every town and village in this country to help bolster up the bankrupt totalisators on horse racecourses. That is what we are doing.
When this method of financing the totalisator on horse racecourses fails, as I think it will fail, the Government will then ask us to give a subsidy to the Racecourse Betting Control Board. They have given subsidies to very unlikely bodies before. When they found some of their shipping friends in financial difficulties they came to their aid. When they propose these things in this Clause they have to remember that the Betting Control Board has some claim to glorification, because five Departments of State appoint members to the board. There are five representatives of State Departments on the Betting Control Board. I feel sure that these five gentlemen have induced this Government to give them a financial lift to cover up their incompetence in dealing with the finances of horse racing. The right hon. Gentleman has never said anything to help us understand this difficult problem. I know very little about this betting business except that which I heard in Committee upstairs. I thought we had touched bottom with money-lending but we descended lower still in dealing with the licensing problems. I have never met however anything so degrading to public life as dog racing.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this very good proposal. Some hon. Members express suspicion because this proposal was supported by so many Members from the 956 Doncaster area, where the racecourse is municipally owned. I am free from suspicion of having any contact with a municipally-owned racecourse. I do not like the argument of the hon. Gentleman about the difficulties of the Betting Control Board. If he had been in the House at the time he would have heard the arguments in support of that board, that horse breeding was suffering in this country, that veterinary attention was declining, that universities were not paying sufficient attention to stock breeding, and that something ought to be done to help the poor horses over the stile. Indeed, if any Members of this House cared to look at the Debates at that time they would be astonished to find how those prophecies have been upset by facts. They said that betting through the tote was cleaner, it was more modern, it was more decent, that bookmaking as such was old-fashioned with too much swindling and too much welshing about it. That was the thing that annoyed me most of all—the argument that in any case the tote could not do any welshing. It could not speak my language I suppose.
Then we were informed that provided we secured the tote on horse racing, then the whole financial transactions on these racecourses would be settled once and for all. The argument put forward in this House that this is a national sport is like the argument that this is a National Government. Somebody to-day reviled Nonconformity and Puritanism. The hon. Member should have heard the right hon. Member's speech upstairs when he brought all the forces of the Government from the Simonites to fee Samuelites to his aid. We take this Amendment very seriously indeed, because it is the one Clause in this Bill that does make betting look a little more respectable than it is at present. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his associates, especially those to the right, will regret the day when the right hon. Gentleman declined to accept this Amendment.
§ 9.31 p.m.
§ Sir BASIL PETO
Like the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), I feel bound to say something on this Amendment. Like the hon. Member I was present in the House on the Second Reading of the Bill to set up the 957 Betting Control Board, and at every sitting of the Committee which considered that Measure I heard and remember the arguments by which it was carried. On the Floor of the House it was explained in speech after speech that there was no intention to legalise off-thecourse betting by the totalisator. On the contrary, when figures were quoted of horse racing betting, it was stated that the wrong set of figures had been quoted, including credit betting. The beauty of the tote under that Act was that it could only be used on racecourses on the days when horse racing takes place. Not for one moment would this House have agreed, if it had not been for the explicit understanding that the proposal the Government are now putting forward would not take place.
That being so, I regard this proposal not with doubt or suspicion, but with regret. Though I rarely quote Latin, this calls to mind one quotation, Facilis descensus averni. How easy it is once you start legalising betting, having passed it through the House of Commons only a few years ago on the explicit understanding that never would this off-the-course betting be legalised by the totalisator. The beauty of it was explained then. It was going to make a kind of happy afternoon for the wife and family of the working class. They would attend it like an innocent out-door party, enjoying it in the open air and watching the horses. There would be no shouting of bookmakers, but all would be done decently and in order. All the benefits enumerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton, veterinary attention, breeding of racehorses, would follow, if only we could pass the simple measure of legalising betting only on the racecourses on the days when horse racing takes place. Now we are asked to do a thing which was never contemplated and against which we were assured we were expressly protected, when it was said that the totalisator should be used in connection with no other sport than horse racing. We are now told that it is necessary to introduce the totalisator on the dog racing track. Considering that in a very few years Parliament has been asked to make a complete volte face and to turn in exactly the opposite direction, how long will it be before we are told that off-the-course betting on dog races 958 is to be legalised throughout the country?
I am reminded of something that occurred last winter. I went through a part of my constituency on a dark and foggy night in January, and I saw what I knew to be a, sports ground brilliantly illuminated with arc lamps. It was bitterly cold, freezing and foggy and said to the driver of my car: "What on earth is this"? Who are they under those arc lamps"? He replied: "They ore running the dog races there now." I remarked: "What a humbug it all is. Why do not they allow them, if they intend that they shall gamble, to go into a comfortable and warm place and spin the roulette wheel?" They will be able to do that in a year or two because of the precedent that I have quoted. People will not need to leave their own fireside. They will be able to register their bets on dog tracks through the Tote Investors Limited, in every cottage home and in every tenement in the country.
Captain A. EVANS
Is the hon. Baronet aware that under the Bill off-the-course betting is illegal on dog tracks?
§ Sir B. PETO
Precisely. The hon. and gallant Member has not listened to one word that I have said. I thought I was clear in what I said. It is not legal now and will not be legal under this Bill. The Betting Control Act was passed on the distinct understanding that no off-the-course bets through the totalisator would be legalised. That being true of a Measure passed only a year or two ago dealing with horse racing, is it not likely to come true in regard to a Measure referring to dog racing? Members of the Government will be carried on to legalise betting off-the-course for dog tracks throughout the country and then we shall have really set up the roulette wheel wherever a working man may choose to operate it, even in his own home.
§ 9.40 p.m.
§ Mr. PIKE
The hon. Baronet has put the case against the Clause more forcibly and with greater knowledge than I could ever hope to do. What amazed me was the simplicity of the Home Secretary's reply. He said that they are allowing off-the-course betting in order to give tote facilities to those who have only previously enjoyed betting with bookmakers. What an excuse. This is a Measure which 959 purports to do away with the evils of gambling. In order to enforce his argument the right hon. Gentleman said that we had seen the growth of the tote clubs, that we had seen the tote club become a grave and growing evil. Can he not see a grave and growing evil in permitting Tote Investors, Limited, to establish branches in every nook and corner of the country? Can he not imagine the minds of the people responsible for the establishment of the betting machines putting them in the most humble rural areas and the most humble urban areas? Wherever there is a coin of the realm to be collected as a result of the natural betting propensities of the people of this country, Tote Investors, Limited, will not lose an opportunity of collecting it. The right hon. Gentleman says that they shall be allowed to do so simply and solely because the public must have the right to enjoy betting under a certain system, when they have previously enjoyed it in an opposite direction. The excuse is futile.
This Clause will bring ridicule on the heads of the Government more than any other Clause. What would the Under-Secretary have said if he had been sitting behind me, as he was a few months ago? I wonder if his support of the Government's attitude would have been as strong as it is to-day.
§ Mr. PIKE
When one is immune from the effect of stones it is easy to say that we do not feel. I do not challenge the answer of the Under-Secretary, but I am positive that he hates and detests this Measure as much as any other hon. Member, with the exception of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) suggested that the totalisator was merely a method for making bookmaking respectable, or making betting respectable. If that were so, and the totalisators were confined to the courses and to the people on the courses at the time the racing took place, I should be inclined to say that they do tend to make betting respectable. But we are not now considering machine betting, which means the mere action on the part of the bettor placing his stake 960 and receiving, less 10 per cent., the total pool, but we are considering something which has developed into the depths of credit betting and more than the betting credit that has existed under the old practice with the bookmakers. The totalisator itself is a credit betting machine. I can ring up to any totalisator existing under tote control to-day and make a credit arrangement with those responsible for the management of that totalisator.
§ Mr. PIKE
Credit betting on totalisators is as rampant, even more rampant, to-day than ever credit betting was with the bookmakers. There is one think which can be said in reply to the interjection. There is now a case in the newspapers in which a gentleman in London has allowed himself to get into debt to the extent of £1,800 with Totalisator, Limited, on credit betting. He cannot meet his obligations and has decided to plead the Gaming Act in order to escape his responsibilities. To what extent is that practice going to spread? I am anxious to stop the evil of betting and in my humble opinion the Clause extends the evils of betting, because it extends the facilities for betting, to a degree which is almost inconceivable. The right hon. Gentleman said, and apparently with some conviction, that it must be allowed because of the reason which prompted the Government to allow the establishment of the totalisator on racecourses. What did he say on Second Reading?The Government in coming to the decision to maintain the legality of these payments were guided largely by the fact that, unless these were permitted, it would seriously affect the collection of the necessary money which we all desire to see used For the purpose of horse breeding.— [0FricIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1934; col. 1,146, Vol. 291.]The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has caught that hare in its stride. What percentage of Totalisator Investors, Limited, activity is being used or will be used, or is ever likely to be applied, to the purposes of horse breeding? And is the necessity for horse breeding sufficiently great to justify this National Government, which possesses no mandate for this Bill, in allowing an extension of chain upon chain of these bet- 961 ting offices to be established throughout the country? If we are to have that let us be honest and say, knowing the consequences, "We will do without horses." After all, if horse racing does not exist for the specific purpose of betting there is no need whatever to breed horses in this country. That is the major use to which they are put. It has been said hundreds of times. It has been said by persons with a more intimate knowledge of the breeding of horses than I have, that if it were not for betting facilities horse racing in this country would come to a natural death to-morrow. Of course that is true. We may have one or two gentlemen who are not interested in the financial results of horse racing who are prepared for the good name of the old country to continue a stable, but how many owners of horses to-day can afford to maintain a trainer, or afford to maintain a horse in its own keep, unless there is the possibility not only of winning a £,100 handicap but also of gathering from the totalisator or bookmaker the amount they would receive as the result of a ten to one bet about what they know to be an even money chance?
Does not the hon. Member know that there are some owners who never bet, who never make a penny, but who still make money out of their racing stables?
§ Mr. PIKE
If the hon. Lady was not so much taken up with her own thoughts, she would have known that that is precisely what I said. There are a few exceptions to the general rule, people who desire horse racing without betting, but in my submission the vast majority of owners could not afford to go racing at all if it were not for betting. While you must legalise certain forms of betting facilities on the track in order to maintain the support of the average Britisher, if you desire to check the general tendency of the betting evil you must at the earliest opportunity remove the Clause from the Bill or put something in which will prevent it from operating as it is intended to operate at the moment. The Clause disregards the recommendation of the Royal Commission on this matter.
The hon. Member for the Don Valley brought home to the right hon. Gentleman very forcibly the recommendation of the 962 Commission, and the hon. Baronet, the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) who played such an important part in the early stages of the Bill, has asked the Home Secretary to reconsider his attitude towards the Commission's report. want to enforce those arguments by asking him whether in running directly contrary to the recommendation of the Commission in this respect, which I submit will create more betting facilities than anything else in the Bill, he has the whole-hearted support of the Cabinet in his action? From some of the statements of my leaders I cannot conceive that they can possibly support this increase in betting facilities in face of the recommendation of the Royal Commission, who judged this matter not from the standpoint of affording facilities for betting with the totalisator but regarded the position from the point of view of public morality and well being, especially as it concerns juveniles. I ask the Government to reconsider the whole position. I am convinced that if it remains where it is you will have betting in every home up and down the country, under such conditions and operated by such a spirit as to create a real gambling problem, which no Government, not even the present Government, will ever be able to overcome.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I hope the Committee will now come to a decision. We have had a considerable discussion on this matter and I hope that we shall now get a decision.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER and Sir WALTER WOMERSLEY were nominated Tellers for the Ayes; but, there being no Members willing to act as Telllers for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 71.905
|Division No. 384.]||AYES||[6.12 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Fermoy, Lord||Remer, John R.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Ganzoni, Sir John||Rutherford, John (Edmonton)|
|Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.||Greene, William P. C.||Slater, John|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Taylor, Vice-AdmiralE.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)|
|Bailey, Eric Alfred George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Templeton, William P.|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Clarke, Frank||Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)||Weymouth. Viscount|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Knox, Sir Alfred||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Lees-Jones, John||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Davison, Sir William Henry||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Dickie, John P.||Nunn, William||Captain A. Evans and Mr. Gurney Braithwaite.|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Pike, Cecll F.|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Apsley, Lord||Attlee, Clement Richard|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Assheton, Ralph||Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.|
|Albery, Irving James||Aske, Sir Robert William||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley|
|Allen, Lt.-Col.J.Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.|
|Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)||Atholl, Duchess of||Balfour, George (Hampstead)|
|Banfield, John William||Goldie, Noel B.||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||Magnay, Thomas|
|Batey, Joseph||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Mainwaring, William Henry|
|Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Mallalleu. Edward Lancelot|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Graves, Marjorie||Mander, Geoffrey le M|
|Bernays, Robert||Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.|
|Birchen, Major Sir John Dearman||Greene, William P. C.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.|
|Blindell, James||Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)||Marsden, Commander Arthur|
|Borodale, Viscount||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E,)|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart||Grigg, Sir Edward||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)|
|Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.||Grimston, R. V.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John|
|Boyce, H. Leslie||Grundy, Thomas W.||Mllne, Charles|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Milner, Major James|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.||Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Guy, J. C. Morrison||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Moreing, Adrian C.|
|Burnett. John George||Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)||Morgan, Robert H.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Hammersley, Samuel S.||Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Hanbury, Cecil||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tieS)|
|Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)||Hanley, Dennis A.||Morrison, William Shepherd|
|Cape, Thomas||Harbord, Arthur||Moss, Captain H. J.|
|Carver, Major William H.||Harris, Sir Percy||Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Munro, Patrick|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Nicholson, Rt. Hn, W. G. (Petersf'ld)|
|Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.||Normand. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.Sir.J.A.(Birm.,W)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.|
|Chapman, Col,R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Hepworth, Joseph||Orr Ewing, I. L.|
|Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Owen, Major Goronwy|
|Chariton, Alan Ernest Leotric||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Paling, Wilfred|
|Christie, James Archibald||Holdsworth, Herbert||Parkinson, John Allen|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Patrick. Colin M.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hore-Belisha, Leslie||Peake, Osbert|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Horobin, Ian M.||Percy, Lord Eustace|
|Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey||Horsbrugh, Florence||Petherick, M.|
|Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Howard, Tom Forrest||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Hume, Sir George Hopwood||Pete, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n. Bliston)|
|Cooke, Douglas||Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hurd, Sir Percy||Power. Sir John Cecil|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Pybus, Sir John|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Radford, E. A.|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M (Midlothian)|
|Crossley, A. C.||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Curry, A. C.||Jamieson, Douglas||Ramsbotham, Herwald|
|Daggar, George||Jenkins, Sir William||Ramsden, Sir Eugene|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Jesson, Major Thomas E.||Ratcliffe, Arthur|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||John, William||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Rea, Walter Russell|
|Davies, Stephen Owen||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Denville, Alfred||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)|
|Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert||Ker, J. Campbell||Rickards, George William|
|Dobbie, William||Kerr, Hamilton W.||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Kimball, Lawrence||Robinson, John Roland|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Kirkpatrick, William M.||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Dunglass, Lord||Kirkwood, David||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Edwards, Charles||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)|
|Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter||Law, Sir Alfred||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Lawson, John James||Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)|
|Elmley, Viscount||Leckie, J. A.||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Salt, Edward W.|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Leonard, William||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)|
|Evererd, W. Lindsay||Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst||Lloyd, Geoffrey||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Scone, Lord|
|Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Loftus, Pierce C.||Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.|
|Fox, Sir Gifford||Logan, David Gilbert||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Fremantle, Sir Francis||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Fuller, Captain A. O.||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin|
|Galbraith, James Francis Wallace||Lunn, William||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Gardner, Benjamin Walter||Mabane, William||Skelton, Archibald Noel|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.|
|George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)|
|Gibson, Charles Granville||McCorquodale, M. S.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Gillett, Sir George Masterman||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Smithers, Sir Waldron|
|Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.||McEntee, Valentine L.||Soper, Richard|
|Goff, Sir Park||McKie, John Hamilton||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.|
|Spencer, Captain Richard A.||Thompson, Sir Luke||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.||Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)||Thorne, William James||Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)|
|Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)||Tinker, John Joseph||Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)|
|Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Stevenson, James||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Wills, Wilfrld D.|
|Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.||Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)|
|Stones, James||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Stourton, Hon. John J.||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)||Withers, Sir John James|
|Strauss, Edward A.||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)||Womersley, Sir Walter|
|Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.||Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)|
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Sutcliffe, Harold||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.||Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)|
|Tate, Mavis Constance||White, Henry Graham|
|Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)||Sir George Penny and Captain Austin Hudson.|
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
|Division No. 385.]||AYES||[9.55 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Glossop, C. W. H.||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Peake, Osbert|
|Albery, Irving James||Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.||Pearson, William G.|
|Allen. Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)||Goff, Sir Park||Peat, Charles U.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)||Penny, Sir George|
|Apsley, Lord||Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas||Percy, Lord Eustace|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Greene, William P. C||Perkins, Walter R. D.|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Petherick, M.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Grigg, Sir Edward||Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.|
|Bailey, Eric Alfred George||Grimston, R. V.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Raikes, Henry V. A. M.|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)|
|Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell||Guy, J. C. Morrison||Ramsden, Sir Eugene|
|Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Ratcliffe, Arthur|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Hammersley, Samuel S.||Ray, Sir William|
|Bossom, A. C.||Hanley, Dennis A.||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Harbord, Arthur||Rickards, George William|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)||Rosbotham, Sir Thomas|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Ross, Ronald D.|
|Brown, Cot. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Browne, Captain A. C.||Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Burghley, Lord||Horsbrugh, Florence||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)|
|Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie||Howard, Tom Forrest||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Burnett, John George||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)||Rutherford, John (Edmonton)|
|Cadogan, Hon. Edward||Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Carver, Major William H.||Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)||Salt, Edward W.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Jamieson, Douglas||Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.|
|Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)||Joel, Dudley. J. Barnato||Savery, Samuel Servington|
|Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Scone, Lord|
|Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Shaw, Captain Villiam T. (Forfar)|
|Christle, James Archibald||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Ker, J. Campbell||Simmonds, Oliver Edwin|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton||Slater, John|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Law, Sir Alfred||Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)|
|Conant, R. J. E.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Southby, Commander Archibald R. J|
|Cooke, Douglas||Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)||Spencer, Captain Richard A.|
|Cooper. A. Duff||Lindsay, Noel Ker||Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.|
|Courtauld, Major John Sewell||Lloyd, Geoffrey||Spens, William Patrick|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Loder, Captain J. de Vera||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)||Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander||Stevenson, James|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.||Stones, James|
|Cross, R. H.||Lyons, Abraham Montagu||Stourton, Hon. John J.|
|Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard||Mabane, William||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Daggar, George||MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)||Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles|
|Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||McCorquodale. M. S.||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Denville, Alfred||McKle, John Hamilton||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Wallace, John (Dunfermline)|
|Doran, Edward||Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Marsden, Commander Arthur||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour|
|Dunglass, Lord||Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Eastwood, John Francis||Milne, Charles||Whiteside, Borras Noel H.|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Mitcheson, G. G.||Whyte, Jardine Bell|
|Emrys-Evans. P. V.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Entwistle, Cyril Fullard||Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)||Morrison, William Shephard||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Fleming, Edward Lascelles||Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.|
|Fuller, Captain A. G.||Nall, Sir Joseph||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Ganzoni, Sir John||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Captain Sir George Bowyer and|
|Gibson, Charles Granville||Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid||Sir Walter Womersley.|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||O'Connor, Terence James|
|Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke||Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Curry, A. C.|
|Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.||Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe||Buchanan, George||Davies, Stephen Owen|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Butt, Sir Alfred||Denman, Hon. R. D.|
|Banfield, John William||Cape, Thomas||Dabble, William|
|Batey, Joseph||Clarry, Reginald George||Edwards, Charles|
|Bernays, Robert||Colfox, Major William Philip||Emmott. Charles E. G. C.|
|Blaker, Sir Reginald||Cove, William G.||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)|
|Foot, Dingle (Dundee)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)|
|Gardner, Benjamin Walter||McEntee, Valentine L.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)||Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot||Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W.Riding)||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)||Stewart, J. H. (Fife. E.)|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Milner, Major James||Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n,S.)|
|Holdsworth, Herbert||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Templeton, William P.|
|Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)||Moss, Captain H. J.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Jesson, Major Thomas E.||North, Edward T.||White, Henry Graham|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Owen, Major Goronwy||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Lanshury, Rt. Hon. George||Paling, Wilfred||William, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Lawson, John James||Parkinson, John Allen||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Leckle, J. A.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)||Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)|
|Leonard, William||Pike, Cecil F|
|Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick||Rathbone, Eleanor||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)||Rea, Walter Russell||Mr. Isaac Foot and Mr. R. J. Russell.|
|Lunn, William||Remer, John R.|
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to theTREASURY (Captain Margesson) rose in, his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."966
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 63.