HC Deb 14 December 1960 vol 632 cc503-35

8.0 p.m.

Mr. McAdden

I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert: (2) The total amount of contributions payable by bookmakers by way of a levy in accordance with a scheme having effect for any levy period under this section shall not exceed in respect of that period the sum of one million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds. It is possible for me to speak to this Amendment with, I hope, commendable brevity because I advanced some of the arguments on Second Reading. I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that there have been very many occasions during the preparation and passage of the Bill so far when the advice of the Peppiatt Committee has been utterly ignored. It seems to me that the Government really must justify in some way their attempt to disregard the advice which has been given to them by the Peppiatt Committee, a very excellent and responsible body of people who might be expected to know something about the problem, especially since their number included the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, who was known to many of us in the House of Commons as Sir Thomas Dugdale and who served the House both as back bench Member and as Minister. Lord Crathorne is himself a distinguished member of the Jockey Club.

After having considered the question of how much should be contributed through a levy for the general benefit of racing, the Peppiatt Committee came to certain definite conclusions. In paragraph 61 the Committee said: We are unable to accent the suggestion of the Jockey Club that a yearly levy of £3 million represents a realistic assessment of the requirements of the industry of horse racing. This was, as I say, the view of an independent body having in its membership a prominent member of the Jockey Club. The Committee went on to say: We recommend a levy of £1m.-£¼m. for the first year of full operation. This sum would provide approximately £100,000 for breeding and veterinary science; approximately £250,000 for increased prize money; and approximately £500,000-£750,000 for the improvement of amenities on racecourses. This, again, was the view of a body of people independent in their judgment who unanimously came to those conclusions.

Her Majesty's Government have in the Bill sought to give power to a body outside Parliament, without even the approval of the Home Secretary, to fix a sum of money which shall be taken from private citizens in this country carrying on a business recognised by the Government as legitimate, and, further, they have done that without providing for any ceiling figure to be imposed upon the amount of money which may be taken in that way.

In my view, this is quite wrong. It is wrong for the House of Commons to delegate responsibility for taxation to an outside body without any limit on the amount to which it can go. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State suggested to me on Second Reading that perhaps I should be wiser not to insist upon a ceiling because, if I remember aright, to insist upon a ceiling would mean that we should set a target figure to which the Levy Board might continually aspire—or words to that effect. Speaking for myself, I would sooner take the chance of the Levy Board having a target of £1¼ million as the amount to which it should go rather than give it free and unfettered control to go as high as it liked.

All the views which I hold upon this matter have been fostered and encouraged by speeches which have been made from both sides of the Chamber emphasising the need of this or that supplicant for assistance from the bookmakers. I suggest that this Committee ought seriously to consider whether it is wise to give such wide discretion to an outside body to levy taxation. I have put down the Amendment in order to suggest that we should be guided by the views of the independent body which examined the matter and unanimously recommended in a certain sense. As I say, this body, having among its members a distinguished and prominent member of the Jockey Club, came to the conclusion that the figures advanced by the Jockey Club itself were completely unrealistic and suggested that £1¼ million was about the right figure to aim at. This being so, there is no reason why Parliament should not profit from that advice. We set up the Committee in order to have its advice.

I am fortified in my view by the experience of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who himself said that one of the problems which will confront the Levy Board in the near future will be an embarrassment of riches. The Board will have so much money coming into its coffers, so the hon. Gentleman says, not only from the Tote Board but from the bookmakers as well, that it will be a little puzzled about what to do with it all. This may or may not be true. I have never myself found it to be true that, when there is money available and to be had for the asking, one has difficulty in getting rid of it.

In the circumstances, I urge the Committee to take the wise course and be guided by the Peppiatt Committee. Let us accept the figure of £1¼ million suggested in the Report. At any rate, let us see how things go. Let us say to the Levy Board, "We give you authority to levy taxation upon private citizens without Parliamentary control up to a maximum of £1¼ million. If you want more, come back and say so". To give wide discretionary powers to such a Board to raise whatever sum it likes from a limited number of Her Majesty's citizens conducting a legitimate business is, in my view, a negation of responsibility on the part of this Committee and I say that we should refuse to accept it.

I ask the Committee to support the Amendment.

Mr. Renton

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) bases his case upon a recommendation of the Peppiatt Committee, but I must point out that that Peppiatt recommendation is quite different from his Amendment. The Peppiatt recommendation was that there should be an amount of between £1 million and £1¼ million as the sum to be aimed at in the first year of full operation of the Levy. My hon. Friend's Amendment is to the effect that the total amount, the maximum amount, for any levy period, that is to say, for the rest of the time that the Bill is in operation, shall not exceed £1¼ million.

Mr. McAdden May I invite my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the Peppiatt Report? In paragraph 62, the Committee does not say anything about the figure of £1 million to £1¼ million being the figure to be aimed at. It says in precise terms: We recommend a levy of £1m.-£1¼m. for the first year of full operation. On Second Reading, my hon. and learned Friend said that I should be wise not to press this point, because my figure, the figure which the Peppiatt recommended, might be accepted as a target. One would normally be led to assume that such a target would go down, not up. Therefore, I think I am justified in putting into the Amendment the figure of £1¼ million not as a figure to be aimed at but as the figure specifically recommended by the Peppiatt Committee.

Mr. Renton

I do not wish to cross swords on a false premise with my hon. Friend. He is referring to the conclusions of the Peppiatt Committee which are summarised in paragraph 62. Paragraph 62 refers one back to paragraph 31, which is the one I quoted.

However, the point really is that the Peppiatt Committee's recommendation referred to the first year of operation. My hon. Friend's Amendment would fix a limit for the rest of the time that the Bill was in operation; it would refer to all future years, unless, of course, the Bill were somehow amended. No provision at all has been made in the Bill as to how large the levy should be. This is left to be agreed between the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee, or, if there is a dispute between them, it is to be settled by the three independent members.

The amount of the levy—and the three independent members would have to bear this in mind—would depend in any year upon three factors: first, the needs of horse racing; second, the capacity of the bookmakers to pay; third, the need to balance the amounts taken from the bookmakers and the Totalisator Board and to do so in an equitable manner. Those are not matters which can be determined in advance in such a way as to say that any particular sum should necessarily be the maximum.

These factors depend not only on the needs of racing but on such things as the number of registered bookmakers, and that cannot be known till we have the list from the licensing authorities which we hope to have next May; it also depends on the individual capacities of bookmakers to pay, as advised by the Bookmakers' Committee, and that cannot be known till the first declarations under the Bill are made.

To set out an irrevocable limit for the rest of time would, I suggest, be most unwise in a Bill of this character. We want this Bill to stand the test of time and not to break down, because of some restrictive provision in it, after the first year or two or even the first few years. I feel obliged, if only for the sake of the record, to emphasise the point which I made on Second Reading and to which my hon. Friend has referred again today, that if a ceiling to the levy is written into the Bill there is a serious danger that it could become a target rather than a maximum and that if that happened the effect would be not to protect bookmakers but to preserve the levy payment at an artificially high or, one may almost say in view of future possibilities, even an unnecessarily slightly low figure.

Mr. McAdden

My hon. and learned Friend knows that I hesitate to interrupt and I do so with great apologies, but let me say this. He is noted for being one learned in the law and trained in logic. How on earth can he reconcile his argument that it is wrong to suggest a maximum figure because it might possibly become a target, with his argument that the figure might become much less? If his argument is that we should place no limit because it is likely to be reduced, surely there is no harm in putting in a maximum figure, especially as that has been recommended by an independent body?

Mr. Renton

I quite appreciate the motives which my hon. Friend has for putting in a maximum figure, but at the same time, for the reasons I am giving to the Committee, I do not think it would be a wise thing to do. He has chosen a maximum figure which even the Peppiatt Committee considered would be a probable maximum only for the first year. That Committee may have been wrong in thinking that £1¼ million was the right amount as the maximum for the first year, or it may have been right; it may have overestimated it, it may have under-estimated it. For the reasons I have given, nobody can say at this stage.

We feel that it would be very much better to name no particular figure in the Bill. Whatever figure we name, whether it is too high or too low, is bound to be misconstrued in one way or another. It is far better to leave the matter flexible. After all, it will be for the representatives of the industry, subject to the arbitration of the independent members, to work this matter out for themselves.

My hon. Friend is entitled to consider whether there is any kind of safeguard to ensure that the bookmakers are not asked to pay an excessive amount, and we say that there is a safeguard, because in the first place subsections (4) and (5) of this Clause provide that the Bookmakers' Committee shall have the initiative in proposing the first draft of the levy scheme, and the Committee is, therefore, in a very strong position. The Levy Board itself has no initiative to consider any other scheme. It must wait till the Bookmakers' Committee puts a scheme before it. That, as I say, is a safeguard. The second safeguard is that, in the event of disagreement, the racing interests, the representatives of the beneficiaries in the broadest sense as we discussed them earlier, cannot override the views of the bookmakers, because if there is a dispute it will have to be decided by the independent members. So there are safeguards, and those independent members will have enjoined upon them, by the Amendment moved earlier by my right hon. Friend, to act in an impartial manner.

8.15 p.m.

For these reasons, and in the kindest way possible, I should have thought that my hon. Friend would do well not to press this Amendment. We have given the matter very great thought. Naturally, we gave it thought in the preparation of the Bill, in view of what the Peppiatt Committee said about the possible results of the first year of the levy, and we have given it still further thought since Second Reading and as a result of my hon. Friend's putting down this Amendment, but with the best will in the world we do not think that it would be an advisable thing to do in any sense at all.

Mr. Fletcher

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) is satisfied with the reply which he has just heard from the Under-Secretary of State, but I certainly am not. I did not intervene after the hon. Member for Southend, East had spoken because I personally do not support the Amendment as it stands, but, in view of the observations we have just heard from the Government, I think that the Committee must look once more at what is being proposed in this part of the Bill. I think it is most unsatisfactory that as the Bill is at present there should be no limit at all on the amount which the Levy Board may raise.

It was recognised on Second Reacting that the Bill is a departure from the recognised and well-established methods by which money is raised in this country through ordinary Budgetary channels, but then it was said that there were precedents for it and paragraph 22 of the Peppiatt Committee's Report was quoted in support of the observation that there were precedents for raising money in this totally unorthodox way. Attention was drawn to that paragraph 22 and the fact that we have a levy on cinema takings for the benefit of British film production, the sugar surcharge mechanism, the levy in the cotton industry, and the two levy payments under agricultural marketing schemes.

I think I am right in saying that in none of those cases is there power for any non-Parliamentary body to raise money without limit. That, however, is what is being proposed in the Bill. I have always taken the view that if the Government seek to do something which is unorthodox and contrary to recognised principles which permit of the ordinary machinery of democratic control, it must be justified.

The Under-Secretary of State said the hon. Member's motives were not questioned. I am not interested in his motives, as to whether he wants to protect bookmakers or not. The Under-Secretary of State said that he recognised the motives of the hon. Member, but I am not concerned with motives. I am concerned only with the purity of Parliamentary control over legislation introduced into Parliament by the Government, and it offends me that in this Bill power should be given to a non-Parliamentary body to raise money from the taxpayers without limit. Although this Amendment may not be the right Amendment to cure that defect in the Bill it does touch the heart of the problem.

I do not know whether £1¼ million is right. Therefore, I am not very interested in the Under-Secretary of State's purely technical arguments upon the Amendment precisely as it is proposed by the hon. Member. I should have thought that it would have been more rational to have fixed an upper limit and if, for example, the hon. Member for Southend, East had said that the limit should be £3 million I should have wanted to support it. I do not accept that if we have a maximum in the Bill it necessarily becomes a minimum or a target or something else. I should have hoped that members of the Levy Board could have been given credit for having more intelligence than to adopt that view.

As it is, they are given a completely free hand, and I think that is objectionable, and I hope, whatever the fate of the Amendment may be, that as a result of this discussion upon it the Government will take note of the considerable objections which have been raised on Second Reading and in the Committee to the absence from the Bill of any maximum figure.

Mr. E. Johnson

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), in bringing forward the Peppiatt Report to support his argument, seems to have overlooked paragraph 55, which says: The requirements of the horse racing industry will change as will bookmakers' capacity to pay and … the Levy Board should accordingly review these factors yearly. … He would prevent that from taking place by inserting a figure which must not be exceeded in any levy period. He says that the Levy Board may review the bookmakers' capacity to pay on the assumption that it will never exceed £¼ million.

Mr. McAdden

I tried to make this point—and I believe that my hon. Friend was present—on Second Reading, but I only hinted at it today because I do not like repeating my Second Reading speeches. If the industry gets this injection of a supply of funds to help build up amenities, the need for these funds will decrease in the future, and that is why there should be a maximum fixed beyond which the Board should not go because it will not need so much in future.

Mr. Johnson

I have never been able to accept the suggestion that £¼ million is the maximum the industry is ever likely to need when we reflect, for instance, on the cost of building the stand at Ascot. The stand at Liverpool might also very well be rebuilt, and, indeed, practically every stand in the country. There is a great demand for a vast expenditure of money. I do not think that my hon. Friend would seriously suggest that this is all that bookmakers are capable of paying. With all respect to the Peppiatt Committee, I have never accepted that for a moment. I base my argument for not accepting it not on assumptions or inquiries that the Committee has made but on essential facts.

What is happening in Ireland? If our bookmakers think they are to be hardly used by paying this levy, they should reflect on the fact that if they were in Ireland—taking the Peppiatt Committee's figures on turnover as accurate—on-the-course bookmakers would be contributing £1¼ million to the Racing Board for on-the-course betting only, but on top of that would be contributing £15 million to the Exchequer. On that basis, in Ireland, with a turnover of only about ¤14 million, they contribute over £1 million to racing.

If an upper limit is to be fixed I suggest that something like £16¼ million might be reasonably accepted. To say that £1¼ million should be the limit is quite absurd, and I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ede

I cannot vote for this Amendment. I have admired the way in which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) has fought the battle for the cause he upholds, but I do not think that he can expect much support.

We do not know how many bookmakers there will be. That is the first thing. I saw in a Midlands newspaper the other day an estimate of the number of bookmakers' offices there are to be in Birmingham. I am beginning to wonder whether any other industry but bookmaking will be carried on in Birmingham if that prophecy is fulfilled. I understand that it was based on the applications that have been received. I read yesterday that in Manchester planning permission has been asked for 111 such offices.

Mr. E. Johnson

I had a deputation from bookmakers, and there are about 1,000 of them in Manchester.

Mr. Ede

I always believe in understating a case. I was giving a figure which I had seen. These may be the people who got caught up in the problem which those of us who served on the Betting and Gaming Bill Committee know very well—the interests of the town planning authorities in this matter. There may be many people applying for licences who will find that town planning requirements will not allow them to get the licences. At any rate, figures are now being given about the possible number of bookmakers which, I think, go far beyond anything that we anticipated when we were considering the Betting and Gaming Bill last year.

Neither do we know what the programme of the Levy Board will be in the contribution it is to make. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) indicated that considerable sums are required to bring grandstands and minor stands up to a reasonable standard of comfort. I was discussing the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) the very considerable scheme, of which I am aware from contemplation, at Epsom. I do not think we should assume that at the end of, say, two years, we shall know what the number of bookmakers is, what the needs of the various beneficiaries—as they are called by this Bill—will be, what sum will be available, and what the requirements will be.

After all, the bookmakers, as the Under-Secretary of State pointed out, have the initiative in this matter. They will prepare the scheme. By the time they come to that, some of the statistical matters I have alluded to may be available. They might find that the forecasts made by the Peppiatt Committee, both about income and needs, have not been justified by the facts that then confront them. I am not concerned now with the fact that we are preceding on non-orthodox lines. I am not orthodox, and I welcome any opportunity to see whether orthodoxy cannot be proved to be wrong.

I hope that the Committee will leave the Clause in this particular as it stands, because it will leave the Bookmakers' Committee when it meets completely free to face the facts of the situation which then will have been revealed, and it will leave the Levy Board in any negotiations free to deal with any situation that might by that time have arisen. I very much doubt whether even as well-informed an individual as the hon. Member for Southend would like to make a firm guess about the number of bookmakers that will be revealed and the amount of business they will do when bookmaking has been made respectable by operating under the Betting and Gaming Act.

We have no definite answer at the moment to any of these problems. I hope that we shall leave the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board with the freedom the Bill as drafted gives them, because I am certain that any attempt to forecast the amount of money that will be at the disposal of those who will then have to consider the matter is completely futile at present.

Mr. McAdden

The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has invited me to make a firm guess about some things. One firm guess that I can make is that the Amendment is not likely to be carried. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) that he must not confuse what we are discussing on the Amendment, which is taxation without Parliamentary control, with sums of money raised in Eire which are legislated for and controlled by the Dail. I hope that by withdrawing the Amendment now I shall not prejudice my chance to put a suitable figure forward when we come to the Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. McAdden

I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, at the end to insert: (b) for securing that the levy shall not be payable by a bookmaker who carries on business as a bookmaker only on a racecourse. This Amendment also is in accordance with the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I am still hoping that some of these recommendations of the Committee, which was set up to advise and has spent a great deal of time on advising my right hon. Friend on this matter, will be accepted. Here is one for a start. The Committee recommended that the on-course bookmaker who conducts his business purely on-course, by reason of the fact that he already contributes to racing by the considerable fee that he has to pay to practise his trade on the racecourse, should not be subject to the levy as well.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Only as part of what he would have to pay for entering, I think it was suggested.

Mr. McAdden

In paragraph 44 the Committee seems to recommend that the bookmaker should be excluded from paying a further levy at all. At any rate, I hope that when my right hon. Friend has looked at the Amendment he will recognise that these people have been contributing to racing for a long while and that, in the circumstances, they might be excluded from further contributions as long as their business is purely on-course.

Mr. Vosper

We had better get this straight. What the Peppiatt Committee recommended in paragraph 44 was, first, in respect of bookmakers practising both on and off-course that half their on-course practice might be taken into account in the Peppiatt levy, but it went on—and this is relevant to the Amendment—to deal with those who practised only on the course, which the Report said numbered only about one thousand. It is not true to say that the Committee made this as a positive recommendation. At the conclusion of paragraph 44 the Committee said: It might be better, therefore, to exclude these small bookmakers from the scheme in order to avoid unnecessary administrative costs. The Committee says "It might be". This is not like the former point that the hon. Member for Southend (Mr. McAdden) made, which was a definite recommendation.

We have not followed this suggestion, because the whole of the proposals in the scheme are less rigid than is envisaged by the Peppiatt Committee. In many respeots more discretion and responsibility to the Bookmakers' Committee is given under the Bill than was suggested in the Report. There are several occasions where this happens and we have not sought at this stage to tie the bookmakers' hands firmly. Whether they wish to follow Peppiatt is a matter entirely for themselves, and if they wish to exclude small bookmakers who practise on-course I cannot think that the Levy Board would wish to disagree with them.

Whether the charge which the bookmaker on-course pays is a contribution to racing or a payment for facilities, the Committee might think that the small on-course bookmaker should contribute to racing. It also may be that charges for racing may be reduced and also that the contribution which the small on-course bookmaker pays will be less than it is today. The Bookmakers' Committee may then think that he should make the contribution by levy.

It does not seem, therefore, in the interest of bookmakers themselves to tie their hands at this stage and to say that in no circumstances for ever more shall on-course bookmakers make a contribution. If the Bookmakers' Committee in recommending its scheme to the Levy Board decides to exclude them, I am certain that the Board would wish to endorse that, but I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East should press this Amendment at the moment and tie the Bookmakers' Committee to something which years hence it might regret.

Although I appreciate his interest, I should like him to reconsider his position and not press the Amendment but allow the Bookmakers' Committee the wider discretion it has under the Bill.

Mr. McAdden

In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Fletcher

I beg to move, in page 4, line 6, at the end to insert: according to the profits of their business. The Committee will remember that the Peppiatt Committee considered a number of alternative methods by which the bookmakers might be divided into different categories. The Bill is completely silent about the directions that are to be given to the Levy Board as to how these categories should be fixed. It is unsatisfactory to draft a Bill in this way, merely giving directions that bookmakers should be divided into different categories. Surely there must be some principle on which the Levy Board should act, otherwise it could divide bookmakers into all kinds of different categories. It could, for example, divide them alphabetically. It could divide them geographically. Any such classification would be ridiculous.

It has always been assumed that they should be divided into categories according to the size of their business. Clearly bookmakers have to be divided into categories according to some principle, and the obvious principle to select is the size of their respective businesses. That is to ensure that justice is done as between the large bookmakers, the medium-sized bookmakers and the small bookmakers. Unless one is careful, even then there may be injustice.

There are various methods by which one could assess the size of a bookmaker's business. For example, the Peppiatt Committee drew attention to four or five different criteria which might be selected. It said that one could categorise bookmakers according to the number of telephones they used, or according to the rateable value of the premises they occupied, or according to their turnover, or the number of their employees. Finally, it suggested that perhaps the most suitable method to adopt would be a categorisation—I apologise for that rather uncouth word—based on profits.

It seems to me that it is desirable that, as far as possible, effect should be given to the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) will agree with me in that observation, and it seems to us that, to ensure that as far as possible justice is done in this rather new field on which we are embarking, we should provide in the Bill that bookmakers should be divided into categories in accordance with the profits of their respective businesses.

Mr. Wigg

I hope that my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment, because it is far better to leave this to the bookmakers. They are intelligent men. They are used to dealing with figures, and they obviously have a common interest in seeing that the scheme that is produced is equitable and is one that will not involve vast administrative costs.

If one talks to bookmakers, one finds that the bulk of them come down on the side of some simple device of dividing them into categories by the number of telephones, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, the number of employees, and the like.

Although the Peppiatt Committee recommended profits, I think it is perhaps necessary to bear in mind that there are very few bookmakers who, if driven to it, could not show that they had no profits at all. There is the business of laying off, and it is possible to ensure that the accounts are presented in the most favourable light. In any case, the Government have chosen to leave it to the Bookmakers' Committee to work out the basis upon which the division shall take place, and I think that that is wise, bearing in mind that the bookmakers are keen on having some simple, recognisable and checkable device. That is the trouble about profits. They will not be easy to check, whereas the number of telephones or the number of employees is very easy, and on current form it makes a very considerable appeal. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment.

Mr. David Griffiths (Rother Valley)

I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) should say that bookmakers are used to figures. They are, and they are also used to handling money. They can do it very intelligently. My hon. Friend says that his suggestion is a simple device, but there is no such thing as a simple device for dealing with this matter. In the part of the world that I come from we call the practice to which he referred "edging". If I were a commission agent and I had a £500 bet struck with me and I fancied that I had insufficient money to stand losing the bet, I would get on the telephone and put £100 on the same horse with A, B, C and D. We cannot say that such a man ought to be taxed on £500 when he has not had £500 worth of business.

My hon. Friend says that bookmakers are quite competent to deal with this problem. I have had a little experience of them, and I know that they are an honest set of people. In fact, they are so honest, like many other people—including Members of Parliament—that they cannot trust each other. We cannot deal with this problem in a more equitable or favourable way than by making use of the profit motive.

Mr. Vosper

My colleagues and I are probably at fault for not making it sufficiently clear that the outline of the Bill is definitely less rigid than were the

Peppiatt proposals. The last Amendment illustrated that point. Here again, we are not asking the authorities to be set up under the Bill to tie themselves to one form of approach. Although the Peppiatt Committee, having considered the various forms under which the Levy could be made, came down in favour of the profits approach, at this stage—and we are looking some years ahead—we feel that it would be inadvisable for the Levy Board and the Bookmakers' Committee to tie themselves irrevocably to that approach.

I agree with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) that the profits approach commends itself as being apparently the most suitable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) has on many occasions advocated alternatives, and anyone who reads Sporting Life knows that there are many variations of the profits approach. Although I am sure that in the initial proceedings the Bookmakers' Committee is likely to recommend to the Levy Board that the Levy should be based on profits, after a year's experience it may find it possible to pursue an alternative approach, and my right hon. Friend does not wish to prevent the Bookmakers' Committee and the Levy Board, during the course of the years, from trying an alternative if they believe one is available. For that reason we have made the scheme in the Bill more flexible than were the Peppiatt recommendations. On the whale, the Committee would be wise to allow the Bookmakers' Committee to have this power to adopt an alternative approach if it wishes.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 131, Noes 190.

Division No. 27.] AYES [8.45 p.m.
Ainsley, William Castle, Mrs. Barbara Fitch, Alan
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Chetwynd, George Fletcher, Eric
Awbery, Stan Cliffe, Michael Forman, J. C.
Beaney, Alan Collick, Percy Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Benson, Sir George Cronin, John Galpern, Sir Myer
Blackburn, F. Cullen, Mrs. Alice George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Blyton, William Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Ginsburg, David
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Boyden, James Deer, George Gourlay, Harry
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Diamond, John Grey, Charles
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Dodds, Norman Griffiths, David (Rother valley)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Callaghan, James Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Hannan, William McInnes, James Rankin, John
Hayman, F. H. McKay, John (Wallsend) Reynolds, G. W.
Herbison, Miss Margaret Mackie, John Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Hill, J. (Midlothian) McLeavy, Frank Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Holman, Percy Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Houghton, Douglas Manuel, A. C. Ross, William
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mapp, Charles Skeffington, Arthur
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Marsh, Richard Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Hunter, A. E. Mason, Roy Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Mendelson, J. J. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Millan, Bruce Soronsen, R. W.
Janner, Barnett Milne, Edward J. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Mitchison, G. R. Spriggs, Leslie
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Monslow, Walter Steele, Thomas
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Morris, John Stones, William
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Mort, D. L. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Moyle, Arthur Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Neal, Harold Wainwright, Edwin
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Warbey, William
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Oram, A. E. Watkins, Tudor
Kelley, Richard Padley, W. E. Witkins, W. A.
Kenyon, Clifford Pavitt, Laurence Willey, Frederick
Lawson, George Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Ledger, Ron Peart, Frederick Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Pentland, Norman Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Loughlin, Charles Probert, Arthur
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Proctor, W. T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
McCann, John Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton
MacColl, James Randall, Harry
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Farey-Jones, F. W. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Aitken, W. T. Farr, John Lilley, F. J. p.
Arbuthnot, John Finlay, Graeme Linstead, Sir Hugh
Atkins Humphrey Fisher, Nigel Litchfield, Capt. John
Balniel, Lord Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Longbottom, Charles
Barlow, Sir John Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Longden, Gilbert
Barter, John Gammans, Lady Loveys, Walter H.
Batsford, Brian Gardner, Edward Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Glover, Sir Douglas Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Berkeley, Humphry Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) McAdden, Stephen
Bidgood, John C. Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) McMaster, Stanley R.
Bingham, R. M. Godber, J. B. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Bishop, F. P. Goodhart, Philip Maddan, Martin
Bossom, Clive Goodhew, victor Maitland, Sir John
Bourne-Arton, A. Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Box, Donald Green, Alan Marten, Neil
Boyle, Sir Edward Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Brewis, John Gurden, Harold Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Bryan, Paul Hall, John (Wycombe) Mawby, Ray
Bullard, Denys Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Harris, Reader (Heston) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Burden, F. A. Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Mills, Stratton
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclcsf'd) More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Morrison, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hastings, Stephen Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Channon, H. P. G. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Chichester-Clark, R. Hendry, Forbes Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Hiley, Joseph Partridge, E.
Cleaver, Leonard Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Cole, Norman Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Peel, John
Collard, Richard Hooking, Philip N. Percival, Ian
Corfield, F V. Holland, Philip Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Coulson, J. M. Hollingworth, John Pitt, Miss Edith
Craddock, Sir Beresford Hopkins, Alan Pott, Percivall
Critchley, Julian Hornby, R. P. Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Prior, J. M. L.
Cunningham, Knox Hughes-Young, Michael Proudfoot, Wilfred
Curran, Charles Hulbert, Sir Norman Quenneil, Miss J. M.
Currie, G. B. H. Hutchison, Michael Clark Rawlinson, Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of Iremonger, T. L. Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Dance, James Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rees, Hugh
Deedes, W. F. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Renton, David
de Ferranti, Basil Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Digby, Simon Wingfield Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Ridsdale, Julian
Drayson, G. B. Kaberry, Sir Donald Roots, William
Duncan, Sir James Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Kerby, Capt. Henry Russell, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.) Kerr, Sir Hamilton Scott-Hopkins, James
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Kitson, Timothy Seymour, Leslie
Errington, Sir Eric Leather, E. H. C. Shaw, M.
Shepherd, William Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) Whitelaw, William
Simon, Sir Jocelyn Turner, Colin Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Skeet, T. H. H. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Spearman, Sir Alexander Vane, W. M. F. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Stanley, Hon. Richard Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Stodart, J. A. Vickers, Miss Joan Woodnutt, Mark
Studholme, Sir Henry Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis Woollam, John
Talbot, John E. Wade, Donald Worsley, Marcus
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Temple, John M. Wall, Patrick TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) Webster, David Mr. Noble.
Thomton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. D. Griffiths

I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, after "declaration", to insert "under oath".

I move this Amendment not without an element of timidity because I realise the difficulty confronting this huge industry and I realise that it will have a lot of teething troubles in dealing with this problem. Ultimately, I think, it will sort itself out and the provision will be helpful to the industry. I have no objection to that and give it my wholehearted support. On the other hand, there are some things which cannot be left entirely to bookmakers to deal with in a haphazard manner. We have to attempt to create and maintain a degree of honesty in these matters. I am not suggesting for a moment that bookmakers, any more than any other section of the general public, are dishonest, but we want to maintain that degree of honesty. For that reason, I think that these declarations ought to be made under oath.

Mr. Renton

I rather doubt whether the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) would have moved his Amendment if he had realised the dire consequences that it might bring upon bookmakers by doing so. Adding the words "under oath" would attract the provisions of Section 2 of the Perjury Act, 1911, so that if the declaration under oath happened to be a false one, it would attract a maximum sentence of not less than seven years' imprisonment. I feel that that would be a most swingeing penalty even for making a false declaration.

It may be of some interest and consolation to the hon. Gentleman to know that the terms of the Bill as they stand attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Perjury Act, so that if a false declaration is made, the maximum penalty would be two years' imprisonment, which we feel is quite enough. For this reason, I would advise the Committee not to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. D. Griffiths

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman telling us that the Government are prepared to allow this element of dishonesty and are making the punishment less rigid, only two years instead of seven? What is the difference? Surely it is only five years, and what is five years? It is not much in the span of one's life, particularly from the age of 15 to 20, but it is from 65 to 70. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman quite seriously that regardless of the implications which he may have indicated concerning the Perjury Act, all we are attempting to do here is to retain that element of honesty.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McAdden

I beg to move in page 4, line 23, to leave out "Levy Board" and to insert: three persons for the time being appointed to be members of the Board by the Secretary of State (hereinafter in this section referred to as 'the independent members').

The Chairman

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments:

In page 4, line 29, leave out "Levy Board" and insert "independent members".

In line 32, leave out "the Board" and insert "them".

In line 35, leave out "Levy Board" and insert "independent members".

In line 38, leave out "the Board" and insert "them".

In line 39, leave out from "committee" to "shall" in line 40 and insert "they".

Mr. McAdden

That is an anticipation of what I would have suggested myself, but you, Sir Gordon, have put it much more clearly than I could have done. It would certainly be convenient to the Committee if we could take this series of Amendments together.

The object is that if the Bookmakers' Committee prepares a scheme, that scheme should be considered by the chairman and the independent members of the Committee, rather than those with the begging bowls who are waiting to receive some benefit from the fund when it is collected. It is suggested in these Amendments that the right thing to do is to enable the independent members to express their opinion upon the scheme prepared by the Bookmakers' Committee, rather than have the other members brought in at that stage, especially the recipient members, the two members of the Jockey Club, the National Hunt Committee and so on, who are all possible recipients under the scheme.

It may come as a surprise to many people to realise that the Jockey Club itself could be a recipient, but hon. Members on this side of the Committee who are familiar with the activities of the Jockey Club will know that it is, for instance, the owner of the racecourse at Newmarket. If there were the possibility of improved facilities at Newmarket, the Jockey Club would be a recipient of sums which might be raised. In these circumstances, it is desirable, and is in accordance with the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend on a previous Amendment on recommendations made by the Bookmakers' Committee, that consideration should be confined to the independent members of the Levy Board. Again I am fortified, as I am so often, by the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley), and I should like to quote what he said on Second Reading. My hon. Friend is a distinguished Member of the House and also a member of the Jockey Club and he therefore speaks with authority on this subject. My hon. Friend said, If the Bookmakers' Committee cannot make up its mind how to get the levy and therefore it is to be done by the chairman and the Home Secretary's two nominees, it is equally right that representatives of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee should not take part in that, because if they did they would be saying how much money they wanted. It is their duty to consider how the money should be distributed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 916.] I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support, in view of the fact that he adds such weight throughout our proceedings in so many ways. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Renton

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) suggests that the levy scheme for assessing and collecting the levy from the bookmakers should, when prepared by the Bookmakers' Committee, be submitted direct to the independent members of the Levy Board, thus by-passing the two members of the Jockey Club and the members of the National Hunt Committee. We do not think that that would be quite right. We feel that the members of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee may have useful suggestions to make in connection with the scheme for the collection of the levy, just as the Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee may have useful suggestions to make on the distribution scheme as to how the money is to be spent.

As I explained earlier, there are three distinct elements on the Levy Board, but it is one board, and until it comes to a dispute we feel that all the members of the board should have the right to express their views upon any matter which arises. My hon. Friend has nothing to fear, because it is abundantly plain from the terms of the Bill that in the event of a dispute it will not be the turf representatives but the independent members who will arbitrate in that dispute.

Having given that explanation, I hope that my hon. Friend and those for whom he justifiably speaks feel that no great jurpose would be served in by-passing the turf representatives, as the Amendment would.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 34, and to insert if approved by the Secretary of State be laid before Parliament as a statutory instrument and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".

The Chairman

It would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 5, line 11, to leave out from "shall" to the end of the Clause and to add: if approved by the Secretary of State be laid before Parliament as a statutory instrument and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".

Mr. Gordon Walker

We attach considerable importance to this Amendment, which seeks to import an element of Parliamentary control over taxation. Indeed, we attach much more importance to the need for Parliamentary control here than in the earlier Amendment which we discussed about Parliamentary control over the expenditure of the Levy Board.

As the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), who is no longer in the Committee, said on an earlier Amendment, this is a tax which we are allowing to be levied in our name by the Bill. It is compulsory. It is a statutory levy. It could not be raised but for a Statute of the Realm. By virtue of the Bill it will be enforceable by law, certainly by civil process.

This is a compulsory charge laid upon bookmakers by Act of Parliament and enforceable by the law of the land. From an individual bookmaker's point of view, there is no question but that this is a tax laid upon him by Parliament. Bookmakers have just as many rights in these matters as any other citizen or class of citizens. In my view, it is wrong that where Parliament is, in effect, imposing a tax, it should part with any control over that tax. This is a very extraordinary tax power which we are conferring upon the Levy Board. It can discriminate between bookmaker and bookmaker. By drawing its categories differently it can vary its discrimination from year to year. It can, therefore, have a very great effect upon the incidence of this tax upon one bookmaker, or class of bookmakers, and another.

Further, there is absolutely no limit to the amount of levy which can be raised. We, therefore, find that we are conferring upon a Board set up by Parliament the right, on the face of it, to levy any amount it likes, to vary this from year to year and to discriminate from year to year as between one bookmaker and another, one taxpayer and another. That is very gravely wrong in the light of all the principles in which we believe. We should not allow any body to have these great powers of taxation, with no residue of Parliamentary control whatsoever over its exercise of these taxing powers.

Even if there are precedents for this, as the Peppiatt Committee alleged, I very much doubt if these precedents are really relevant. They relate to different sorts of bodies from the one set up under the Bill. Even if a relevant precedent can be found I would still say that it was a bad precedent and should not be followed. The mere fact that Parliament, in its unwisdom, may have done one bad thing is no reason why it should do another. If there is a precedent for this I would rather get rid of it: I do not want to follow it. It does not seem to me that the argument of there having been a precedent—even if a relevant one can be found, which I doubt—is an argument that could be prayed in aid by anyone who believes in the principles on which our legislation in these matters is based.

The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag on Second Reading when he told us that the reason he was doing all this was that he wanted to get rid of responsibility himself. He did not want the responsibility of having to decide all these things. Of course, in getting rid of his responsibility he got rid of our responsibility and our rights, too. We cannot get any residual right of control unless a Secretary of State will exercise it himself.

The purpose of our Amendment is twofold. First, it is to make sure that the Secretary of State himself shall exercise a proper control over these taxing powers and, secondly, that he shall then be answerable to us. Once again, we are not asking for regular, sustained, continuous debates year after year. We are asking for the right of Parliament in a matter of taxation to assert its rights if it should so wish. Whatever people may feel about the details of Bills, the clash of interests and so forth, this is a matter of profound principle on which I hope that all hon. Members on both sides of this Committee will be united.

Major Sir Frank Markham (Buckingham)

The speech of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) was very brief, and mine will be brief, too. His speech was to the point, and I hope that mine will be, too. But surely the right hon. Gentleman has ignored a point of considerable importance—I do not say that he has done so deliberately, but he has ignored all the precedents quoted in the Peppiatt Report, and, above all, the most signal thing Parliament has ever done, and that is passing over the rights of levy or taxation to a host of local government bodies, port authorities, and so on. There is not only full precedent for the line being taken here, but adequate, warranted and workable precedent.

Mr. Gordon Walker

The Peppiatt Committee did not claim that there were any true precedents. It is clear from a careful reading of the Report that there were things which were more or less like this, but they were not true precedents. All local authorities are under some form of public control and are answerable to the public. The Levy Board would not be in any way answerable to the public.

Mr. Renton

There are, broadly, two arguments in answer to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the nature of the levy scheme is that it is a matter for the industry itself. As has been said so often, this is an opportunity for the industry to help itself. The second argument is that the proposal to make the levy scheme subject to approval through Statutory Instrument procedure is just not workable.

I will develop both themes. The concept of the Peppiatt Report was that the scheme was domestic to the racing industry. We felt that it was both unsuitable and undesirable that a Minister or either House of Parliament should become involved. The Peppiatt Report envisaged that the collecting scheme would be approved by the Secretary of State. Instead of following that advice, we have made provision for arbitration by the three independent members of the Levy Board.

I will explain why the procedure suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be quite impracticable and would cause delay. The scheme will have to be drawn up by people with detailed knowledge of betting and the manner in which bookmakers work and make their living. Account will have to be taken of the matters set out in Clause 3 (6). If there is a dispute, but only if there is a dispute, the independent members will have to balance the needs of racing and the capacity of bookmakers and the Totalisator Board to pay. When they are arbitrating, the independent members will have the advantage of having participated in the investigation by the Levy Board of the needs of racing, and they will have discussed with the Chairman of the Bookmakers' Committee the detailed problems of bookmakers.

Therefore, the independent members will have an intimate knowledge of the problems involved. Neither my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary nor the House of Commons would have those advantages. My right hon. Friend would not have independent sources of expert information on which to call. If the Secretary of State were required to approve a scheme for assessment and collection of the levy, particularly when there had been disagreement, he would in effect be made into an appellate authority, but the difficulty is that he would not have the detailed knowledge of the machinery for exercising the function of an appellate authority.

If there is to be arbitration by the three independent members, which we say is correct, it would be superfluous to require the Secretary of State to draft a Statutory Instrument, approve the scheme in that manner, and lay it before the House as well. If we accepted the right hon. Gentleman's procedure, we should entirely scrap the system of arbitration by the independent members. We do not think that it would be right to do that.

If we kept both procedures, the Secretary of State would either be a mere rubber stamp for the decision of the independent members or he would have to do their work afresh without the advantages of the full information which they would have.

9.15 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned precedents. There are, of course, other levy schemes but, as far as I have been able to ascertain, none is subject to yearly approval by Parliament. In the case of each of them a framework scheme has been approved by Parliament, just as we have put the framework of the scheme into this Bill. It has generally been done by affirmative Resolution but, once that has been done, the statutory authorities have been left to determine the details themselves, and to make annual adjustments. That is what we have done in this Bill.

Quite candidly, I am not sure that it is useful to follow all the precedents in detail. If we did, we might find some precedents among the nationalised boards that would not be entirely welcome to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. This is, as we have accepted, an unusual scheme. It breaks entirely fresh ground, and surely it is right that we should draft into the Bill a scheme that appears best to fit the particular circumstances of this industry.

I think that one can summarise the issue between the official Opposition and the Government on this Amendment by saying that the broad choice lies between trying to treat the levy scheme as something strictly domestic to the industry—subject to independent arbitration in the event of dispute—and full Parliamentary control, which would mean that the levy would be regarded as a tax raised by the State, the needs of the industry being met by a voted subsidy.

Fundamentally, that is the broad choice lying before the Committee, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal goes to either of those things. What he has suggested is a hybrid between those two broad alternatives that are at our disposal. A hybrid or compromise is sometimes workable, but I do not think that it would be in this case. Without labouring the matter, I should also point to the dangers of delay, because there would undoubtedly be delay.

One could enter into all sorts of discussions as to what the nature of the Statutory Instrument would be like, and whether hon. Members, who do not possess the expert knowledge of the bookmaking business that the Bookmakers' Committee will have, and which the independent members will learn, could deal adequately with special arrangements designed to meet the special circumstances of the bookmaking business. It is hard to envisage how the terms of the Statutory Instrument would be worked out.

We also have to face the possibility that if hon. Gentlemen did not understand something and demanded that it should be clarified we should get even longer delay. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to understand that we fully appreciate the importance of this matter. The Home Secretary has been into it very closely indeed, but, for the reasons I have given, we do not think that this provision would be appropriate—or, indeed, practical.

Mr. McInnes

Apart from the question of Parliamentary control raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), I am disturbed by the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He recognises—he has indicated—that a very important factor here is the Bookmakers' Committee. We do not know and I do not suppose that we ever shall know the way in which that Committee will be constituted. According to the Bill, that is a matter for the Home Secretary. We do not even know how many bookmakers will be appointed.

Here I want to make a number of references to the provisions of the First Schedule. According to that Schedule not a single bookmaker need be on the Bookmakers' Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman, replying to my right hon. Friend, talked of the expert knowledge of the Bookmakers' Committee. What expert knowledge will its members possess? Who will they be? There is no assurance that even one bookmaker shall serve on this committee. This is very important because, as the Peppiatt Committee indicated, bookmakers are the people who are best suited for the purposes for which the Levy Board is to be established. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will deal with that point because it is vital to this discussion, quite apart from the important point of Parliamentary control.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I do not want to traverse the whole of our case again, but the Joint Under-Secretary used one argument which is somewhat dangerous doctrine, namely, that if there is a little delay this is an argument against Parliamentary control of taxation and expenditure. This is surely a dangerous suggestion. We have always realised that Parliamentary control of taxation involves delay in the business of the Government and we have all been prepared to pay that price.

I hope that on consideration the hon. and learned Gentleman will not use this argument of delay against the rights of Parliament to control taxation. We on these benches feel very strongly on this point, and we feel that we must divide on the Amendment.

Mr. Renton

I should just like to point out that I used that argument in the particular context of what we were discussing. I certainly would not have pressed it as a general argument.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.—

The Committee divided: Ayes 186, Noes 129.

Division No. 28.] AYES [9.22 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Green, Alan Osborn, John (Hallam)
Aitken, W. T. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Atkins, Humphrey Gurden, Harold Pannell, Norman (Kirkdaie)
Balniel, Lord Hall, John (Wycombe) Partridge, E.
Barlow, Sir John Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Barter, John Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Peel, John
Batsford, Brian Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Percival, Ian
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Berkeley, Humphry Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Pitt, Miss Edith
Bidgood, John C. Hastings, Stephen Pott, percivall
Bingham, R. M. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Bishop, F. P. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Prior, J. M. L.
Bossom, Clive Hendry, Forbes Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bourne-Arton, A. Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Quennell, Miss J. M.
Box, Donald Hiley, Joseph Rawlinson, peter
Boyle, Sir Edward Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Brewis, John Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Rees, Hugh
Bullard, Denys Hocking, Philip N. Renton, David
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Holland, Philip Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Burden, F. A. Hollingworth, John Ridsdale, Julian
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Hopkins, Alan Roots, William
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hornby, R. P. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricla Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Hughes-Young, Michael Russell, Ronald
Channon, H. P. G. Hulbert, Sir Norman Scott-Hopkins, James
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hutchison, Michael Clark Seymour, Leslle
Clark, William (Nottingham. S.) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Shaw, M.
Cleaver, Leonard Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Shepherd, William
Cole, Norman Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Collard, Richard Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Spearman, Sir Alexander
Corfield F. V. Kaberry, Sir Donald Stanley, Hon. Richard
Coulson, J. M. Kerans, Cdr. J. s. Stodart, J. A.
Critchley, Julian Kerr, Sir Hamilton Studholme, Sir Henry
Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E. Kitson, Timothy Talbot, John E.
Cunningham, Knox Leather, E. H. C. Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Curran, Charles Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Temple, John M.
Currie, G. B. H. Lilley, F. J. P. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Dalkeith, Earl of Linstead, Sir Hugh Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Dance, James Litchfield, Capt. John Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Deedes, W. F. Longbottom, Charles Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)
de Ferranti, Basil Longden, Gilbert Turner, Colin
Digby, Simon Wingfield Loveys, Walter H. Vane, W. M. F.
Drayson, G. B. Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Duncan, Sir James Luoas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vickers, Miss Joan
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) McMaster, Stanley R. Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Elliott, R. W. (Newcastle-on-Tyne, N.) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Wade, Donald
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Maddan, Martin Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Errington, Sir Eric Maginnis, John E. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Farey-Jones. F. W. Maltland, Sir John Webster, David
Farr, John Markham, Major Sir Frank Wells, John (Maidstone)
Finlay, Graeme Marten, Neil Whitelaw, William
Fisher, Nigel Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Wigg, George
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Mawby, Ray Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Gammans, Lady Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gardner, Edward Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Glover, Sir Douglas Mills, Stratton Woodhouse, C. M.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) More, Jasper (Ludlow) Woodnutt, Mark
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Morrison, John Woollam, John
Godber, J. B. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Worsley, Marcus
Goodhart, Philip Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Goodhew, Victor Noble, Michael TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside) Oakshott, Sir Hendrle Mr. Bryan and
Mr. Chichester-Clark.
NOES
Ainsley, William Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Blackburn, F.
Allen, scholefield (Crewe) Beaney, Alan Blyton, William
Awbery, Stan Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.) Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Boyden, James Houghton, Douglas Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Oram, A. E.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Padley, w. E.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hunter, A. E. Pearson, Arthur (Pontyprldd)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Peart, Frederick
Callaghan, James Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Pentland, Norman
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Janner, Barnett Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Chetwynd, George Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Probert, Arthur
Cliffe, Michael Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Proctor, W. T.
Collick, Percy Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Randall, Harry
Cronin, John Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rankin, John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Reynolds, G. W.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Deer, George Kelley, Richard Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Diamond, John Kenyon, Clifford Ross, William
Dodds, Norman Lawson, George Sketfington, Arthur
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter Ledger, Ron Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Small, William
Fitch, Alan Loughlin, Charles Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Fletcher, Eric Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Forman, J. C. McCann, John Spriggs, Leslie
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) MacColl, James Steele, Thomas
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh McInnes, James Stones, William
Galpern, Sir Myer McKay, John (Wallsend) Swain, Thomas
George, J. C. (Pollok) Mackie, John Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Ginsburg, David McLeavy, Frank Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Wainwright, Edwin
Gourlay, Harry Manuel, A. C. Warbey, William
Grey, Charles Mapp, Charles Watkins, Tudor
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Marsh, Richard Wilkins, W. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Mason, Roy Willey, Frederick
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mendelson, J. J. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Millan, Bruce Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hannan, William Milne, Edward J. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hayrhan, F. H. Mitchison, G. R. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Herbison, Miss Margaret Morris, John
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Moyle, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Holman, Percy Neal, Harold Mr. Howell and Dr. Broughton.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.