Clause 4.—(ASSESSMENT OF OR EXEMPTION FROM BOOKMAKERS' LEVY.) (Hansard, 14 December 1960)

The Deputy-Chairman
Mr. Fletcher. The Amendment to page 5, line 29.

§ Mr. McAdden
On a point of order, Sir William. I did take the precaution of checking with the learned Clerk at the Table about my three Amendments, in page 5, line 20, leave out from "period" to "the" in line 21 in line 22, leave out "for" and insert "shall state"; and in line 26, leave out from "may" to "scrutinise" in line 28. I understood that they were to be taken together. I should like an opportunity to move them.

The Deputy-Chairman
I had thought that they were considered on Clause 1. That was my understanding.

§ Mr. McAdden
With respect, Sir William, they raise rather different points from those raised in the Amendments moved to Clause 1, and I took the precaution of making sure that this was so. May I move them very briefly?

The Deputy-Chairman
I am afraid I could not allow that, but the hon. 536 Member will have an opportunity on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

§ Mr. Fletcher
I do not propose to move the Amendment we have down to page 5, line 29.
I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, at the end to insert "and rejected".
I move the Amendment because it seems necessary that we should clear up some ambiguities in this subsection. This subsection uses some very odd language. I am sure the Home Secretary was not responsible for it. It would introduce into our Statute Book what I think is a new word to it—"scrutinise". I cannot recollect having seen that word in an Act of Parliament. I hope that the Home Secretary or one of his assistants will tell us what it is intended to mean.
As I understand the concept of the Clause, it is that first of all the bookmaker should make a declaration, either under oath or not as the Committee may decide, and then if the Bookmakers' Committee is not satisfied with the declaration it should scrutinise it. I 537 assume that that means that that Committee will look at it and examine it. Then it is proposed that in the case of any bookmaker whose declaration has been scrutinised certain things happen. Contrary to what one might have thought, one finds that it is provided that in every such case the bookmaker in question is then assessed in some different way.
There does not seem to be any provision as to what is to happen if a bookmaker makes a declaration, has if scrutinised by the Bookmakers' Committee, and then finds that that Committee is satisfied with it. It looks to me as though the draftsman of this Clause has meant to provide that the Clause should operate only adversely to a bookmaker after his declaration has been scrutinised and if, for some reason or another, it is rejected by the Bookmakers' Committee.
There must, of course, be cases in which the Bookmakers' Committee will be suspicious about a declaration, but, having examined it, and, presumably, having taken such other steps as are open to it, will then be satisfied with it. But it will still have to scrutinise it. Something is necessary in the drafting of this subsection to make it intelligible.

§ Mr. Renton
This is a matter more of drafting than of substance. Perhaps the extreme economy of words used by the draftsman may justify the comments made by the hon. Gentleman, but at any rate I undertake to consider the matter and will get in touch with him between now and Report stage, if he will, meanwhile, withdraw his Amendment.

§ Mr. Fletcher
On that satisfactory assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, at end to insert: If a bookmaker is of opinion that he has been put in the wrong category, the Bookmakers' Committee shall be required to tell him in writing the reasons for their decision". The object of this Amendment is to try to overcome the difficulty about the onus of proof, as I see it. As the Bill stands, it appears that the onus, if a bookmaker feels that he has been put in the wrong category, lies with the bookmaker 538 himself to prove that he is innocent and to prove his own case that the category in which he said he belonged was the right one.
I tried to find a way in which the onus of proof could be changed to the Bookmakers' Committee, so that it would have to prove the case, rather than the bookmaker having to prove it himself. I did not find that that was possible, so I thought that the simplest way of trying to shift the onus was to put down an Amendment in these terms. It would mean that the Bookmakers' Committee, if it felt that the bookmaker had said that he was in a category to which he did not belong, would then have to give its reasons in writing, and would not then be able to depart from those reasons, and the bookmaker would have something to shoot at in trying to prove his own case.

§ Mr. Vosper
I appreciate the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) but I do not think that the Amendment is acceptable. He perhaps does not understand the procedure which will operate here. The bookmaker will declare the category into which his profits fall, and therefore the initiative, as my hon. Friend suggested, will rest with him.
It is then open to the Bookmakers' Committee to decide, from its general knowledge of that bookmaker, that he should be placed in a higher category, and it will, therefore, re-assess him. It will not do that on any factual knowledge supplied by him in the form of accounts, because they will not be made available to it, and it will not find it possible to justify that reassessment in a letter or an explanation in writing.
My hon. Friend says that that is unfair to the bookmaker who is reassessed into a higher category, but it is open to him to go to an appeals tribunal to state his case. At that stage information in the form of accounts can be made available. To write into the Bill—desirable though it may seem in theory—that he should be given in writing the reasons for his being reassessed into a higher category would not work in practice, because the Bookmakers' Committee would not have available to it factual knowledge by which to make that reply.
539 The bookmaker may rest upon the appeal to the appeals tribunal, when the facts will be made fully available. I do not think that the words proposed in the Amendment offer any particular safeguard.

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
The right hon. Gentleman has used an extraordinary argument. He is telling us that the Bookmakers' Committee will do things for which it cannot give any reasons in writing because it will not have any reasons it can state. I did not think that under the Bill we were giving people powers to exercise to the detriment of the bookmakers without giving reasons. I think that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) is on a very good point and that the right hon. Gentleman's answer to him is really extraordinary.

§ Mr. Vosper
I said that the Bookmakers' Committee could re-assess him in the light of its general knowledge of his affairs, but not of detailed accounts, because those would not be available. And because it would not then be possible for the Bookmakers' Committee's re-assessment to be explained in detail, he has a right of appeal to an appeals tribunal, which can require him, if necessary and if he is willing, to produce accounts. That is his safeguard.

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
One of the difficulties I see the bookmaker in is that he will be re-assessed in a different category on grounds which he does not know, and of which he has not the full details because they are not available to him in writing. It seems to me that this goes against the principles of British law and justice which require that a man is assumed innocent in any proceedings that may take place. In this case the bookmaker is being assumed guilty on the say-so of the Bookmakers' Committee, and that Committee is not required to give its reasons in writing. I find that a little difficult to understand and against the principles of general British law.

§ Mr. E. Fletcher
I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, to leave out "fifty" and to insert "one hundred".
This is the subsection which is designed to protect bookmakers against the improper disclosure by the Bookmakers' 540 Committee or the Levy Board, or anybody else, of information coming to their knowledge confidentially about his affairs. It will be appreciated that bookmakers, like other members of the community, are sometimes sensitive about their earnings, their profits and the quantity of their business, and they will not be very pleased to make declarations of the kind required by the Bill or to submit those declarations to the Bookmakers' Committee unless they are assured that such communications shall be completely privileged and not subject to improper disclosure to any third party.
The sanction suggested in the Bill is a fine of £50. It seems to us that it would be a very serious thing if bookmakers, having made confidential disclosure of their figures, were then to find that information had been passed on improperly to some third party. We think that there should be a really adequate deterrent to prevent any such disclosure. We therefore propose that the fine should be increased from £50 to £100. Speaking for myself, since I tabled the Amendment I have had some doubts whether we might not have been wiser to have suggested an even higher figure.

§ Mr. Renton
We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the maximum of £100 is not inappropriate to cover the worst type of offence that might arise. I think he can rest assured that it need not be very much higher, because an examination of similar penalties shows that £100 rather than £50 that was originally in the Bill is broadly in line with what we have been carrying into other Statutes for similar offences. For these reasons my advice to the Committee would be to accept the Amendment.