§ (1) Betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator shall not take place on any day on a track being a dog racecourse, in connection with more than eight dog races, and betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator on the results of dog races shall not take place on any day on such a track as aforesaid except during one continuous period not exceeding four hours:
§ Provided that, in relation to any of the four special appointed days fixed in any year by the licensing authority in accordance with this section, the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall have effect as if there were therein substituted for the word "eight" the word "sixteen," and for the words "one continuous period not exceeding four hours" the words "a period or periods not exceeding eight hours in the aggregate."
1210§ (2) If bookmaking is carried on or a totalisator is operated by any person on any track in contravention of this section, that persons and, if he is not the occupier of the track, the occupier also shall be guilty of an offence:
§ Provided that where the occupier of a track is charged with an offence by reason of a contravention of this section on the part of another person, it shall be a defence for him to prove that the contravention occurred without his knowledge.
§ (3) The licensing authority when fixing the appointed days for any year in accordance with this Part of this Act shall also fix four of those days (which four days shall be the same for the whole of their licensing area) as the special appointed days for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of this section.—[Sir A. Butt.]
§ Brought up, and read the First Time.
1211§ 12.58 a.m.
§ Sir ALFRED BUTTI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think it is particularly unfortunate that at one a.m. in the morning we should have to discuss any new Clause in connection with this Bill. I feel that the House wishes to go home, but, in spite of that fact, I hope they will bear with me for a few minutes while I explain what is of fundamental importance to this badly drafted and badly conceived Bill. Under Clause 1 of the Bill betting by way of a bookmaker or a totalisator is permitted in connection with racing and greyhound tracks for 104 days a year; but there is no limitation in the Bill as to the number of meetings or the number of races that can take place on any individual day. Elsewhere the Bill legalises totalisators, and I believe that this is the first instance where gambling for private gain is being legalised by legislation.
I think it will be apparent to the Committee that substantially the whole of the profits that are being made out of greyhound racing are derived from the totalisator and it follows therefore that it will be to the interest of those who run greyhound racing tracks to have as many races as possible each day, so that the totalisator may operate as often as possible. I can conceive that it may become very general to have twice-nightly greyhound racing, and continuous performances like a continuous cinema. As far as I can gather, there is no great preparation for a greyhound race. They can follow each other just as quickly as is permitted by the necessary interval for betting. In this Clause, I am proposing that not more than eight races shall take place at any one meeting, and that no meeting shall last more than four hours. I am suggesting exceptions on four days in the year, Bank holidays, on which there should be a limitation of 16 races and a continuous eight hours. It is only fair to tell the Committee that I raised this point upstairs on Clause 1, and had most sympathetic consideration from the Home Secretary. He has kindly considered this Clause, and I am hopeful that he will accept it. I do not think it, is necessary for me to enlarge on the absolute necessity of some such restriction being included
§ 1.4 a.m.
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe hon. Member raised this problem in Committee upstairs, and I promised then to consider it. I think the solution which he proposes is a reasonable one to deal with a problem which has caused a certain amount of concern. If this is done it will give an added opportunity to the greyhound tracks to run on these four days. At the same time it will put a set limit on the number of races to be run on each day, and I believe that to be generally in accord with the views of the Committee.
§ 1.5 a.m.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am very glad that the Home Secretary is able to accept this, no doubt after having examined it in detail. Seven or eight years ago these matters were in their infancy, greyhound racing was only beginning, and the Totalisator Bill had still to be passed through this House. The objections then urged to a national sweepstake would have been put forward with quadrupled force if it had been known that we were to have this tremendous system grinding out the money, very often of the working classes, on 104 days in the year. I think it is very creditable that a private Member should have designed such an essential limitation on something which inculcates the habits of gambling in the worst possible form. I am glad the Home Secretary accepts the proposal. It limits to a very small extent the evil which under this Bill is now stereotyped from one end of the country to the other. I trust most earnestly there will come some day a Parliament which will have the courage to deal with this question on its real merits, and not in accordance with the voting pressure that can be brought to bear on it.
§ 1.7 a.m.
§ Mr. LOGANI am just as anxious as anyone regarding the question of betting in the distressed areas. I have heard a great deal of talk in regard to the extension of betting. There is no question that you are dealing here with gambling only in regard to one particular sport. I have heard it stated that there is some respectability in regard to horse racing compared with dog racing. To be candid, I can see no respectability in either. Looking at the damage in the poor areas, I see nothing to be proud of in regard to 1213 horse racing. To be logical, I would have liked to have seen something brought in that would have really dealt with the gambling propensities of the people.
§ Sir A. BUTTOn a point of Order. Has the hon. Member's speech anything to do with the Clause, which concerns the number of dog races which shall take place on an individual day, and has nothing to do with the general question?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI thought that perhaps the hon. Member's remarks were limited to dealing with the proposed new Clause.
§ Mr. LOGANI want to remind the hon. Member that I did not intervene in his speech. It is very unbecoming—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I do not require hon. Members to tell me that and they will not get me to close by that means. It is very unbecoming in regard to one particular sport to criticise the action of a Member of Parliament. I believe I am on an equality with any other Member of the House, no matter what the opinions may be from any particular quarter. I am exercising my right in the British House of Commons to speak my mind on the matter which is before us. That cannot be denied. Therefore, because I have the right to free speech here, I am not asking anything more than any other hon. Member. I have the right to point out that there is a particular interest that brings forward a proposal which appears to me to be totally inconsistent with the attitude to be adopted in regulating the sport. I am a private Member and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) compliments a private Member on having a solution. Is it a solution? Some hon. Members are interested in horse-racing, and it may be desired to maintain the position of another sport, but I want to see fair play. I am fully convinced that if this House which professes to deal fair and square with a particular interest means anything at all—[Interruption]. If the hon. Members had paid more attention to this Bill, as I have, and had sat as long in this House as I have, there would not be so much grinning about it. I am referring to two hon. Members.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI can assure the hon. Member that I am not grinning.
§ Mr. LOGANI am aware of that, but one would have thought that, when we were debating a subject of this kind, at least more attention would be paid to the remarks which are being made. My remarks are absolutely pertinent. I am fully conscious and sober, and I know what I am talking about. This provision means a limitation, so let us examine the position. Here is a sport—I do not express any opinion as to whether it is good or bad—which has been exercised on some tracks for six days a week. We are told that it is most absurd that a sport should go on from morning to night. It is not possible for sports to go on like that. Nothing of the kind is possible. You cannot get an audience from morning to night, and therefore, though the regulation of hours is within the province of this House, we should be reasonable. You are taking away from these people who operate for six days a week, and you are making it 104 days per annum. That is two days a week. If they are dishonourable men you should get rid of them, but if they are honourable they should be dealt with on a basis of equity. I am not dealing with the merits of horse racing but with dog racing. I do put it to the House that if you want to have a fair and square deal with the penalties that you are exercising in this Bill—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe question of penalties does not arise under this Clause.
§ Mr. LOGANI am fully aware that they do not, but I am trying to point out some considerations in connection with the curtailment which is taking place and that it is curtailing the operation of a sport from six days to two days a week. I think I have a right to point out that this curtailment is taking place and to put before the Committee my reasons for thinking that the suggestion now brought forward should not be accepted. I understand that these people pay rates and taxes, Income Tax and Entertainments only. These things, along with the value of the property in their possession, will suffer depreciation. I believe there is no question of compensation.
I wonder if there is any other sport in this land to which the House would be prepared to see the same curtailment 1215 applied as is suggested here, namely, twice a week for four hours. What is the object? I am in agreement with the four hours, but not four hours continuous sport. I have an objection to continuous hours in regard to dog tracks. I say that if there is to be a limitation, some compensation in regard to the question of income and regulation of tracks should be offered to enable these people at least to exist. They should say that these people should be able to sub-divide the four hours into two hours, giving two hours of sport, as in the case of the cinema or theatre, because it is long enough on the race track or dog track. An opportunity should be given by some method like this to enable these people to have a chance of carrying on. I do not think it is fair as it stands, nor is it reasonable. It seems to be a case of vested interests in regard to this particular matter. While you believe that sport should not be crushed out, either directly or indirectly, every effort is being made to get rid of something that you think is obnoxious. That is most unfair.
I have found vested interests in this City—it cannot be disputed—which are absolutely antagonistic and anxious to get a monopoly. I have tried to seek a working arrangement with some, but every effort has been made to see that no arrangement can come about, except that these particular tracks should be put out of operation. I therefore object. I know that with his big majority whatever the Home Secretary accepts will be the verdict of the House and that all I can say will count for nought. At least I have this knowledge that I am free to express my opinions, no matter who is against them. It would be reasonable for the Home Secretary to give to these people, if it is to be only two operating days, some opportunity of at least having two separate meetings. That would be four meetings in two days. Otherwise, let the right hon. Gentleman be honest and say "we are going to get rid of them altogether." I take up a different attitude altogether. If you want to get rid of them, get rid of dog racing and horse racing, but I am not prepared to give a vested interest the right to crush out others. Therefore, 1216 I hope that the Minister will not accept this proposal and that the House will say that it would not be doing a fair and square thing.
§ 1.20 a.m.
§ Brigadier-General CRITCHLEYI rise to support the Clause. There are one or two points I would like the Home Secretary to consider. I think that probably eight races are too few to enable a great number of tracks to exist. A great number are going out anyway. That, I think, is a good thing, but a number of tracks which ought to live will go out if limited to eight races. On licensed tracks there are 43,000 registered greyhounds and 22,000 registered owners. All of these owners have paid considerable sums of money for the greyhounds they own, and, if the racing be limited to eight races per meeting or per day, these greyhounds are not going to be able to race and will have to be got rid of. I think that the hours should be consecutive, and that three or four hours are quite enough. I would like to support the Clause.
§ 1.21 a.m.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSI would like to point out that we are making great changes, or we are laying down what should have been in the original Bill? Once we fixed the 104 days we should have fixed the racing times. I gather from previous speakers that this is the result of an agreement which took place upstairs in Committee.
§ Sir A. BUTTImmediately this loophole was pointed out by me the Home Secretary promised to give it his fullest consideration. It was a very difficult Clause to draft and great care was taken. The Home Secretary approved the Clause. There was no agreement. The right hon. Gentleman gave me his assurance that he would do his best to comply with my wishes and criticism.
§ Mr. LOGANHe would not give anything definite, but he said he would consider it Which, like every promise, means nothing.
§ Sir A. BUTTThe hon. Member seems to suggest that I have other interests. 1217 Unfortunately his memory is very short. He made some innuendoes in the Committee and apologised.
§ Mr. LOGANI have never apologised to the hon. Member. I have not apologised yet, and I never intend to do so because what I have said is true and the hon. Member well knows it.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMSSo far as my hon. Friend is concerned, I do not cast any aspersions. I simply wish to point out the extraordinary difficulties in which we as Members of the House of Commons are placed at this particular stage. I know nothing of why four hours, or two hours, should be best. I am accepting it as the judgment of the Home Secretary and of my hon. Friend here. May I make one more representation about this limitation of dog racing? There is a form of gambling provided abroad for the rich, at casinos, but they are prohibited in this country and it is humbug therefore to say that this is a Bill to deal with the poor man's form of sport. It does no good to attempt to create any class prejudice in that way.
§ 1.23 a.m.
§ Mr. PIKEMy opposition is that it is creating something against which the Government had definitely legislated. On the other hand, it is facilitating to a much larger extent something for which the Government have legislated. The Government decided that 104 racing days per year were sufficient for dog racing tracks. The hon. Member who has moved this Clause knows perfectly well that eight dog races in four hours will bring about the complete ridicule of this sport.
§ Sir A. BUTTIt does not necessarily follow that they must have four hours.
§ Mr. PIKEI understood that the Home Secretary had more or less stated what the Clause contained. There is no doubt that dog tracks possessing clubs within their area and on the track, drinking bars, drinking clubs, card playing and billiard clubs, and other forms of sport generally associated with clubs, will naturally take advantage of the four hours. Will it mean that there will be eight races during those four hours and that the races will take place every half-hour; or will they take place as they take place to-day, roughly every seven to twelve minutes according to the size of the track and 1218 according to the circumstances of the people attending the track? If it be in any way intended to curtail racing to one race per half-hour—and I venture to suggest that that is the underlying intention—it will completely destroy the whole sport.
§ Sir A. BUTTI do not want the hon. Member to be misled. He will see that there are eight races and that they are not to occupy more than four hours. In practice, he knows perfectly well they will not have races every half-hour. They will probably have half-an-hour before the start and a quarter-of-an-hour interval. The hon. Member may be very glad they use their facilities.
§ Mr. PIKEThe question is what this empowers them to do, and, in my submission, what the Clause will empower the occupier to do is that which will be done. I am satisfied that this Clause is really an attempt to bring about the complete destruction of Clause 1 of the Bill. The hon. Member who spoke last supported the new Clause on the ground that it would be generally advantageous to dog racing. I am perfectly convinced that it will not be generally advantageous to it. If we are going to have it for only 104 days, let us have it, but not under conditions which will create a monoply for the best tracks in the country. The hon. and gallant Member is interested in the most up-to-date track in the country. In the Provinces they are divided into probably four or five separate interests. They are smaller tracks which could not compete with the hon. and gallant Member's track, or tracks.
What will it mean if this Clause be accepted It will mean that there will be power completely to smash competition from whatever source that competition may arise. These smaller tracks will either have to come into the track of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken or will have to go out by sheer poverty on account of the conditions with which this Clause will confront them. I submit that the Home Secretary with his legal assistance can conceive and create a much more acceptable Clause than the one which is before the Committee at the present moment. I am perfectly aware that the eight races for the whole day is not the intention of the Committee or the public, and I believe 1219 that there should be a curtailment of restrictions. This Clause actually means the complete abolition of the smaller competitor, first, to the advantage of the monopolistic; and, secondly, if there be anything left, to the advantage of those who are more interested in the sport of horse racing than dog racing.
Captain ARTHUR EVANSI would like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Brigadier General Critchley) in the acceptance of this idea. I hope the Home Secretary is not wedded to the eight races as there is not the slightest doubt that in the provinces there is a demand for a matinee. Without the opportunity for a matinee some of these smaller tracks could not exist, and it means that if there is to be a matinee there must be twelve races. I will support the Clause; but I hope the Home Secretary will give further consideration to the figure of eight before the Report Stage.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause added to the Bill.