General Betting Duty

HC Deb 06 July 1981 vol 8 cc139-71 12.36 am

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan)

I beg to move, That the general betting duty chargeable under section 1 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1972 or section 16 of the Miscellaneous Transferred Excise Duties Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 in respect of any bet made on or after 12th July 1981 which is not an on-course bet within the meaning of the section in question shall be of an amount equal to 8 per cent. of the amount staked. And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed three changes in betting and gaming duties. These duties were unchanged in the Budget. Taking account of the representations that we had received from hon. Members and elsewhere, I believe it is right that that area should now make an additional contribution in the context of the recoupment that is under discussion tonight. The general arguments in relation to that are those which I rehearsed in the previous debate.

The first specific measure with regard to betting and gaming is the proposed increase in the off-course rates of general betting duty from 7½ per cent. to 8 per cent. with effect from next Sunday, 12 July.

Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)

Disgraceful.

Mr. Brittan

The rate of 7½ per cent. has remained unchanged since March 1974. At a time when many sections of the community are being asked to make sacrifices, I think that it is reasonable to seek an additional ½ per cent. from this source. There will be no change in the on-course rate of 4 per cent. There is, of course, a substantial difference between the two.

I am well aware of the concern that has been expressed about illegal betting. This is particularly reflected in the report of the Royal Commission on gambling. The Royal Commission said that the existing rate of 7½ per cent. was running dangerously close to the critical point at which illegal betting would be likely to increase to a substantial extent. It did not say that any increase would result in a large-scale increase in illegal betting—

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

rose—

Mr. Brittan

—but that 7½ per cent. was close to the critical level.

Mr. Cocks

Give way.

Mr. Golding

Rather than relying on the remarks of the Royal Commission, has the Chief Secretary made an estimate of the amount of illegal betting taking place in factories and pubs even with the present level of tax?

Mr. Brittan

I am unable to give that estimate.

Mr. Cocks

Disgraceful.

Mr. Brittan

I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), the Opposition Chief Whip, seems a trifle unwell.

Mr. Cocks

I am perfectly well.

Mr. Brittan

If the right hon. Gentleman is well, he seems unaware of the rules of order. I find it surprising that one so senior in the House should be in that unfortunate position.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Grimsby)

rose—

Mr. Brittan

No, I shall not give way. I was about to bring my remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Mitchell

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order. If the Minister is not giving way, the hon. Gentlman knows that he should resume his seat.

Mr. Brittan

I believe that it is precisely because of the risk of driving betting into illegal channels that my right hon. and learned Friend has confined the increase to so small a figure as ½ per cent. I commend the motion on that basis, as a measure contributing a small amount to the revenue required to recoup what was lost.

12.40 am

Mr. Robin F. Cook (Edinburgh, Central)

This motion is the second example of fine tuning to be put before the House tonight. We are yet to debate another two, in the course of what promises to be an extensive survey of the Government's attempt to recoup the revenue that they lost as a result of their defeat on derv.

The Chief Secretary said that the motion arose from the same general considerations as he rehearsed when he moved the first motion. I listened carefully to what he said then. He had considerable fun at the Opposition's expense, on the basis of what happened when Labour was last in power, saying that we had constantly had mini-Budgets, which were our version of fine tuning.

I was not a member of the Treasury team that brought in those mini-Budgets, but I recall what happened. I do not remember any attempt by the Labour Government to introduce fine tuning of this nature to increase the tax burden in the way that we are discussing, by means of an answer to an oral question. If we are now to expect that it is legitimate for the Treasury Bench during any Question Time to announce four new tax increases, we shall look forward to Question Time with trepidation. It may be that at every Question Time we shall have a new tax. The next turn for Treasury Questions is 30 July—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

The next Budget day.

Mr. Cook

It may be as well, for the country as well as for the House, that there is a possibility that we shall not be sitting then, because heaven knows what additional fine tuning the Treasury would find it necessary to place before the House.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

It may even be necessary before oral questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suspend action on the Stock Exchange and shut the banks as a precaution.

Mr. Cook

It would be a novel procedure if we were obliged to keep Question Time going until 5 pm before additional questions were selected so that we could find out what new tax or tax increase was being announced.

The previous motion at least represented a sizeable sum of money—about £65 million, by far the greater part of the £85 million that we shall debate tonight. The Chief Secretary was modest enough to say that the sum that we are now debating was small. Indeed, it is. The House will now have to debate, over three successive motions, a grand total of a mere £20 million, which, we are told, it is essential for the Treasury to recoup so that it may preserve the integrity of its fiscal judgment. The sum of £20 million, set against a public sector borrowing requirement of £10½ billion, is not fine tuning. We are no longer talking about fine tuning; we are talking about finessing the PSBR.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

Is not this an extraordinary contrast with the way in which the whole of Government expenditure, the best part of £100 billion, is not discussed at all by the House?

Mr. Cook

My hon. Friend touches on a grievance that the House has, and one that it should debate more fully. My hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service have tried to open up this area, and we appreciate their efforts on our behalf. I understand why my hon. Friend was unable to join us earlier. His work in the Committee may have been of greater service to the country than the mere £85 million that the House has been asked to debate on Government motions. It might have been better use of the House if the Government had tabled down here some of the matters that have been discussed in Committee upstairs, so that we could all have a say. However, my hon. Friend tempts me to go wide of the motion, and I shall resist that temptation.

I return to the general remarks that I was making before coming to the betting motion. It should be made clear, because it will help to shape the way in which I hope the debate proceeds, that we do not accept that it is necessary for the Government to recoup however much of the £20 million comes within the motion in order to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. It is the Opposition's firm view that the PSBR, even without the £20 million being sought in these motions, is already far too low.

The view has been expressed from the Treasury Bench that the reduction in the PSBR which the Government are planning for this year is not deflationary because it is above the target which they set for last year. It may be higher than their target for last year. It is well below the outcome that they achieved last year.

I know that the Treasury Bench now treats demand management with contempt. There is no heresy reviled more than any Keynesian suggestion that it is possible to try to stimulate demand in the economy and achieve a return to growth. They treat any such suggestion with contempt. However, it must be pointed out that we are experiencing a recession which is without parallel in our history as an industrial nation. Output has fallen faster over the past two years than in any previous two years for which records exist, including the worst two years in the 1930s. To meet that collapse of output and that dramatic recession with a further reduction in demand is perversity of a high order. Yet the House is being asked to connive in that these motions will reduce demand further, deepen the recession and reduce any incentive to industrialists to try to return to growth and to increase output.

I was perhaps more fortunate than most other hon. Members in that on Sunday I received a copy of The Observer. It may be that I am the only hon. Member present who did. I understand that no one south of Newcastle clapped eyes on it. That is an unfortunate omission which I should like to repair, because in the business review was Mr. William Keegan's column. I should like to share with the House the opening paragraph, because I am aware that it is a paragraph that most of my hon. Friends did not have an opportunity to read. Therefore, I brought it purposely with me south of Newcastle in order that I might share it with the House.

Mr. Golding

I wonder whether my hon. Friend will tell the House to which Newcastle he is referring.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not really relevant lo the debate.

Mr. Golding

Additionally, I wonder whether my hon. Friend read the racing column in The Observer. I missed it, and I should appreciate it if my hon. Friend read it to us tonight.

Mr. Cook

I apologise if I have offended my hon. Friend's constituency sensibilities. Like many another Scot, I understand the geography of England from the stations which I encounter on my way south, and the station which I see on my way south is called Newcastle, although strictly it should be called Newcastle upon Tyne. I regret to tell my hon. Friend that I did not read the racing column. Had I done so, I am not sure that I could recall its contents verbatim from memory. But I give my hon. Friend the assurance which I have already given the Library, having made an inquiry on The Observer earlier tonight, that the next time there is a dispute on The Observer and copies only get north of Newcastle upon Tyne, I shall make sure that I bring two copies south, one for the Library and one for my hon. Friend so that he can read the racing column.

I return to Mr. William Keegan's column. It begins with the opening paragraph: The Chancellor's micro-Budget"— I appreciate the nuance there; one would not wish to suggest that the Treasury had brought in a mini-Budget— of another £85 million in taxes bears out the growing impression that the Government's economic policy measures are beginning to resemble a scramble for deck chairs on the `Titanic'.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)

I like it. Read it again.

Mr. Cook

I assure my hon. Friend that there is a better bit coming: The mere fact that tax increases can be announced at all at this juncture and with such desperate meticulousness heightens the need for the Cabinet to take a long, cool look at where it is going, if only for the sake of their memoirs.

That was the view of Mr. William Keegan on Sunday. It is one which I appreciate Treasury Ministers were unble to share, not having seen The Observer on Sunday, but it is a view that they should take to heart, especially Mr. Keegan's sage advice to them that now is the time when they should perhaps consider what they will say in their memoirs when inevitably the question arises, if not from their grandchildren at least from their publishers, "What did you do in the great recession of the early 1980s?" That is the question which on present form Treasury Ministers will be hard put to answer.

I suggest that one of the actions that Treasury Ministers could take in order better to answer the question when their publishers ask it and when the typist looks with disdain at what she has been asked to transcribe is to say that they did at least attempt to maintain a PSBR in constant terms and did not further reduce the demand in the ecomomy.

We are asked further to reduce that PSBR by granting the Treasury the right to raise additional funds. Even if one accepts that the fiscal judgment was right, Treasury Ministers know that there is a margin of error in estimating the PSBR. If the Government accept that fiscal judgment, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, there is a margin of error in estimating the public sector borrowing requirement. They must know that there is a margin of error in the PSBR. Last year they got it wrong by 60 per cent. That is a large margin of error. Since that occasion, the wrath of the Government has been visited upon the Government's statistical staff and large numbers of members of the Government's statistical service are facing the axe and a redistribution to other services.

No other Department in the Government service would tolerate a 60 per cent. margin of error from its statisticians, but that is what we had last year in the PSBR. Not only did we did have a 60 per cent. margin of error but tonight we are being asked to debate three motions which—it is right that we are asked to examine them individually in detail—if taken together would add up to £20 million. That represents 0.2 per cent. of the PSBR. It is within one three-hundredth of the margin of error in last years' PSBR. It is bizarre to assure the House that it is necessary for the economic, monetary, borrowing—

Mr. Mikardo

The figure is one three-thousandth.

Mr. Cook

I stand instantly corrected by my hon. Friend. While I am still on my feet, I should not wish to repeat the calculation that my hon. Friend has been able to do from a sedentary position. I shall test it as soon as I sit down. I suspect that I am correct, but I shall accept my hon. Friend's correction for the time being. It is bizarre, whether it be one three-hundredth or one three-thousandth, that the House should be asked to accept these resolutions as being essential to the Government's economic policy, monetary target and borrowing requirements. Indeed, it is such a tiny sum in relation to the total PSBR that it is within what even this Government could recoup within a few working days—if they had the wit to find the means of increasing output by a mere 1 per cent.

Yet what are we debating, far from changing anything that would make it more likely that we shall increase that output, is well known to the Opposition to make it less likely that we shall achieve that increase, because we shall decrease the demand available to stimulate increased output.

Mr. Hooley

The calculation is even more ludicrous, because the correct calculation is the proportion that the £20 million represents to the aggregate of revenue which the Government hope to raise during the year. That is a more lunatic percentage that the one my hon. Friend gave.

Mr. Cook

I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. He will appreciate that I enter the debate in the spirit in which the Government have brought the motion forward. Their anxiety is the effect of the PSBR on their monetary target. Therefore, they are seeking to persuade the House that it is essential to have this motion because of the proportion of the £20 million that it will give them in added revenue to enable them to contain a PSBR of £10½ billion.

That proposition is difficult enough to accept without accepting my hon. Friend's point that, viewed against total Government revenue, one would have great difficulty even in identifying the £20 million.

However, for the sake of argument and in order to make progress, let us concede the two arguments advanced by Treasury Ministers. Let us concede that their fiscal judgment is right. I hasten to add that this is a purely hypothetical assumption. Let us also concede that there is no margin of error in estimating the PSBR. It was 60 per cent. last year, but it is zero this year. Let us therefore assume that it is necessary to recoup the £20 million sought in these motions on betting and gaming.

How should the Government go about recouping that money? If in the context of the Finance Bill it is necessary to recoup expenditure which the Government have been obliged to concede by an amendment to the Bill as first presented to the House, it would surely be logical to expect them to look for a means of recouping that expenditure by amendments to other provisions in the Bill.

The Government could have looked at the concessions. After all, the Government have been obliged to make a concession to a certain lobby interest. We understand that, and we support that concession. But, if it is essential to finance that fresh concession, the logical thing is to revoke some of the concessions which the Government felt able to make when the Bill was first presented to the House.

I had difficulty in following the figures quoted by the Chief Secretary in the last debate. I have the Red Book with me, and I am looking at table 2. There I find concessions, the quantities of which are interesting. For instance, there is the concession on capital gains tax— Settled property rules, including rollover relief". The forecast for a full year is £15 million forgone—as much as the Treasury could hope to recoup by bringing in the motion that we are now debating.

There are alternative concessions contained under the heading of "Capital transfer tax". There are a large number of those concessions. My hon. Friends who did not serve on the Standing Committee may be interested to know that there are 10 clauses on capital transfer tax in the Finance Bill, which contain substantial concessions on top of the concessions made in last year's Finance Act.

That Act doubled the exempt amount of wealth that can be transferred without a person becoming liable to capital transfer tax. Indeed, the Treasury estimates—it is an estimate of which it is proud, because it attempts to carry out one of the Government's manifesto commitments—that. by doubling that exempt rate, two-thirds of households previously liable to the tax are removed from liability.

As we said in Committee, we only wish that the Government had made the same progress on implementing their manifesto commitment to cut income tax at all levels. That was last year. This year, having already removed from the capital transfer tax net two-thirds of those liable to pay it, they have reduced the burden to be paid by the remaining one-third. If we add up the figures given in the second column of table 2 relating to a full year's effect, we find that in a full year £20 million is given by the various concessions on capital transfer tax in the Finance Bill.

Therefore, if it were so essential for the Government to recoup the money that they lost by the cut in the tax on derv, the logical place to look for recouping that money would be within the Finance Bill, in the concessions that they felt able to make when they drafted it, and having first added up the revenue and expenditure and come to the conclusion that £10½ billion was the right sum for the PSBR for the forthcoming year. When that figure was disturbed by the cut in the tax on derv, the logical way to replace it was to look at those concessions. The Government have not done that, although the two figures taken together would give them £35 million in a full year, which must be comparable in a full year to the revenue from the three motions. We can only speculate as to why they chose not to do it in that way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Is my hon. Friend aware—as we all will be—that every Labour member of the Committee, both tonight and during nearly every debate in Committee, referred to the concessions on capital transfer tax? Is he further aware that at every stage during the proceedings on the Bill there have been people from the press, representatives of the media, present—as there are tonight representatives from the Press Association—in the Gallery listening to the debate? Yet at no point during the proceedings on the Finance Bill, or in the debate on the Budget, has any copy gone out of Parliament about these major concessions. Will my hon. Friend once again tonight appeal to the media to tell the truth and to tell the British people what we are being asked to do in Parliament, much to our displeasure and in such a way that people do not realise what is happening?

Mr. Cook

If I were to choose this moment to make an appeal to the media, the particular representative who is present might feel that there was a degree of unfair and unfortunate victimisation. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been very little reporting of what has been done in regard to the capital transfer tax concessions in the Bill. If it were widely known in the country that the same Government who have assured both public and Parliament that they cannot afford a penny to lessen income tax, and who need to increase even the duty on matches to get the money that they require, are still able to find the money to provide a cut in tax for those able to transfer £2 million to their sons or daughters, it would be greeted with outrage. [Interruption.] I see no one seeking to intervene, but it is characteristic that on this point Memebers on the Government Benches are unwilling to join battle with us. We have discovered that on many occasions during the proceedings on the Finance Bill.

For reasons about which we can only speculate, the Treasury Bench has chosen not to revoke those concessions, which logically it now cannot afford. It has chosen to bring in taxes on other items and to seek to recoup the money in other ways. In the motion, the Government are seeking to recoup the revenue by putting up the general betting levy.

I confess that I labour under a disadvantage. It is a disadvantage that is not shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who will he able to advise us on the motion from first-hand information. But I have no first-hand knowledge of the betting world. Indeed, if I may share a confession with the House, the only occasion on which I have been in betting shops was in 1964, during the general election, when I was active as a sub-agent and was invited round Edinburgh to put up Labour posters in the betting shops of one of our local betting chains. The owner was encouraging his staff and punters to vote Labour in the unfortunately mistaken belief that a Labour Government would repeal the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 and make his operations illegal again, because he had made far more money when he was illegal than when he became legal under a Tory Government. That is my first-hand experience of what occurs inside a betting shop. I have to rely on book learning to assess the impact of this motion, and the money it seeks, on the people we represent.

It would be a safe generalisation to say that betting and bingo are predominantly a recreation of the working class. I have the Home Office gambling statistics for Great Britain covering the period from 1968 to 1978.

Mr. Golding

It would be safer for my hon. Friend to refer to off-course betting as being predominantly the activity of the working class. If he uses that term, he will not offend my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) and myself, who wish to talk about on-course betting.

Mr. Cook

I have no wish to offend my hon. Friends. I agree that there is a distinction between on-course and off-course betting.

The gambling statistics contain a number of interesting tables. One table relates the incidence of bingo and betting or pools to different socio-economic groups. The peak for both is reached among the manual worker groups. The peak for bingo occurs among the unskilled manual class. The peak for betting and pools occurs in the skilled manual class, closely followed by the semi-skilled manual, closely followed again by the unskilled manual class. There is clearly a peak distribution in the manual, working-class socio-economic groups.

Mr. Hooley

I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's argument. Is he talking about aggregate or per capita amounts staked? There is clearly a considerable difference, which will have a bearing on his argument. My hon. Friend says that betting is the prerogative of the working class. There are, of course, extremely rich individuals who indulge in the casinos of this metropolis that are one of the disgraces of London.

Mr. Cook

I ask my hon. Friend to be patient. I shall refer to the matter. The casinos do not feature in the figures to which I have drawn attention.

Mr. Mikardo

Nor does the Stock Exchange, the biggest betting shop in Britain.

Mr. Cook

My hon. Friend is right to distinguish between the practice of betting and the sums laid. If one took a distribution on the basis of the amount of bets laid, the distribution would doubtless be different. The figures to which I refer relate to the percentage engaging in each activity in the four weeks prior to interview. We may be talking about a sum of 50p. The figures may conceal wagers of £5,000 placed by the 1 per cent. of professionals who went to bingo some time in the previous four weeks. However, the peak distribution—the highest incidence of those betting or going to bingo—occurs among the manual working class.

A similar picture emerges in the table relating to household income. The peak distribution in the case of bingo, betting and pools occurs among those earning between £60 and £100 a week in 1977. That is not a high income, even for 1977. It is within the sum which could comfortably be attained by skilled manual, working-class individuals. About £60 could comfortably be attained by unskilled manual, working-class individuals. The peak participation in betting at bingo is to be found in male, manual, working-class families.

Mr. Hooley

Bingo is different.

Mr. Cook

Bingo is treated differently from betting in the tables that I am using. In both bingo and betting the distribution is similar.

Mr. Golding

Betting in betting shops primarily is a male working-class activity, but bingo is primarily a female working-class activity. That has important social repercussions.

Mr. Cook

I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hooley

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has made my point. Females are involved in bingo more than males.

Mr. English

I do not want my hon. Friend to use up his speech on the next motion, which deals with bingo.

Mr. Cook

I have plenty to say about the betting levy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has much to say about bingo. There will be no composite speech but two separate speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will certainly get value for money this evening.

I hope that we have unravelled the statistics so that we may be satisfied that the highest incidence of participation in betting involves male workers in off-course shops. We can take that as common ground among all those who have participated in making this interesting speech. If it were necessary for the Government to recoup their revenue through the betting and gaming duties, why did they not put before the House a motion on the duty levied on casinos?

There are four betting and gaming taxes. The first is the general betting levy, which we are debating. The second is the bingo duty, which we shall debate later. The third is the duty on pools, which the Government could not, with a straight face, seek to increase because they have already been criticised by the Rothschild commission, which suggests that the duty on pools should be reduced. It would be beyond the brass neck of the Treasury to go against that and seek an increase in the duty. The fourth is the duty on gaming licences. I am advised by those who have been in casinos that it is not normal to find a predominance of unskilled punters, such as one would find in an off-course betting shop. Nor is it normal to find a predominance of widowed pensioners, such as one might find in a bingo hall.

Mr. Golding

I should place it on record that I do not frequent casinos either. My betting activities are conducted with the male manual working class of whom my hon. Friend has spoken. I plead total ignorance of the affairs to which my hon. Friend is addressing himself.

Mr. Cook

I am grateful that we have clarified that point.

Mr. Hooley

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cook

If my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) wishes to confess personal failings, I am happy to give way.

Mr. Hooley

I do not intend to make any confession. My hon. Friend is guilty of a slip of the tongue. Casinos are full of unskilled punters. Nobody but an unskilled idiot would go into a casino. I think that my hon. Friend meant to say that casinos are not full of unskilled manual worker punters.

Mr. Cook

Perhaps my hon. Friend and I could compromise and agree that casinos are full of the idle wealthy. However, it is a wise man who knows when he is beaten; and I shall pass rapidly to my next point.

Given my state of first-hand, personal ignorance about what goes on in casinos, I may have erred. I am open to correction from any part of the House, but I gain some conviction in my prejudice from the reports of the Betting and Gaming Board. For two successive years the board's report has confessed that the reduction in revenue in casinos is a reflection of the reduction in the number of wealthy visitors coming to London, in particular, and Britain, in general, on tourist holidays.

The House could reasonably ask why we are faced with a motion which will increase the tax paid by the unskilled manual punter and a subsequent motion that will increase the duty paid by the widowed pensioner who goes to bingo but have not been offered a motion to increase the gaming duty paid by wealthy American or Arab visitors who come to London on the spree. It would seem that those are precisely the people to whom we might look to recoup some of the revenue—if it is essential that we recoup it.

The motion will raise to a duty of 8 per cent. the tax paid by every unskilled manual punter every time he places a bet. Every £1 bet will attract tax of 8p, which will go to the Treasury. I am advised that things are very different in casinos. I am told that the wagers placed in casinos—the money handed over for chips—are known as the drop. The value of the duty levied on gaming licences is equivalent of 0.13 per cent. of the drop. My hon. Friends the Members for Heeley and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), who are quick with arithmetic, will soon apprehend that 8 per cent. is 58 times 0.13 per cent.

Mr. Golding

My arithmetic is poor, which is why I am twisted so often in the settling of debts. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the punter in the betting shop pays the levy as well as the tax and that bookmakers cane him even further for so-called administration?

Mr. Cook

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that additional dimension to what I was saying. I had not wished to give a picture that unduly exaggerated the contrasts that I wish to establish. I was confining myself to the 8 per cent. referred to in the motion. Even if we confine our focus to that 8 per cent., we are left with the contrast of the unskilled manual punter who is paying 58 times the duty paid by the wealthy Arab who visits a London casino. That contrast attracted the attention of the Royal Commission—

Mr. English

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has allowed many interventions. There is an analogy to be drawn. The Government increased the public sector borrowing requirement for 1981 over 1980 by 59 times the amount of the increase in taxation provided for by the orders collectively.

Mr. Cook

I am impressed by my hon. Friend's capacity for finding a coincidental figure that is parallel to the figures in the motion. As he said, I have given way generously. Perhaps I should make progress with the points that I wish to adduce to the House which relate to the reasons why we should resist the motion. The Rothschild Royal Commission on gambling included an interesting section on the revenue from casinos. On page 305 it said that there should be an increase in the duty on those who frequent casinos to bring them in line with the duty paid by those who frequent off-course betting shops. It said: the argument being that it is illogical, if not inequitable, that someone who gambles in a casino should pay virtually no tax whereas the punter who backs a horse off-course is taxed at 7.5 per cent. of his stake". That sentence, cogent, lucid and persuasive though it is, will, if the motion is carried by the House, be out of date. That 7.5 per cent. will become 8 per cent. The contrast will be even greater.

I appreciate that in the last Finance Bill the Government implemented another part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, namely, an increase in the levy on the profits of the casinos. However, they did nothing to increase the rate which the Royal Commission recommended for the actual chips purchased by those who frequent the casinos. That is not an academic point. The Royal Commission went to the trouble of identifying the consequences of its proposals on revenue. It might interest the House to know what the Royal Commission thought could be obtained in additional revenue. It said: If these proposals were implemented, casino tax receipts would go up from £5.5 million in calendar 1977 to an estimated"— I appreciate that the figure may come as a surprise; it was quoted by the Royal Commission after considerable analysis— £54.4 million". That is a 10-fold increase at 1977 prices. If we uprate that figure to 1981 prices, we shall find almost the full figure of £85 million that we are being asked for tonight.

Last year, when the Government implemented part of the recommendations, they estimated that that would yield £20 million in a full year. That leaves at least another £35 million of additional revenue which they could obtain by translating into the Finance Bill the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which would fall overwhelmingly on that wealthier section of the population who visit casinos.

That has not happened. Instead, we have this motion which increases the duty on those who indulge in betting on horses and thereby will not diminish but increase the contrast in the rate of duty on the male manual workers who go to the betting shop and the wealthy idle rich who go to the casino.

A yet further divide is opened up between the rate of duty that is paid by those who have a lifestyle and employment that are sufficiently relaxed to enable them to take the day off to go to Ascot or to the Derby and the rate that is paid by those who do not have the lifestyle that enables others to travel perhaps several hundred miles to the course and who are obliged to place their bets in the corner betting shop off course.

In the origin of the levy on general betting a contrast was introduced between the two rates. The rate introduced for on-course duty was 4 per cent. The rate introduced for off-course betting was 6 per cent. The on-course betting was two-thirds of the rate for off-course betting. The off-course betting duty has been raised from 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. and the on-course duty now represents not two-thirds of the off-course duty but half that duty.

It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that off-course betting was discouraged because it was believed that if it were tolerated and encouraged it would be indulged in by the unskilled manual worker as a punter. It was feared that it would be indulged in by the poorer section of the population. For that reason, it was thought that it should be discouraged. The implication within that discrimination was that it was the wealthier who resorted to on-course betting.

Mr. Golding

I approve entirely of my hon. Friend's argument about casino betting, but he is now going wide of the mark. Does he not appreciate that the tax is lower on course because of the need to have a strong market to establish starting prices? There is every reason to attract the public to attend racecourses. My hon. Friend's argument is not strictly accurate.

Mr. Cook

My hon. Friend is tempting me into deep water where I am not competent to canter. I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend to take up that line of reasoning. There will be many who participate in the debate who have more knowledge of these matters than myself. I understand that not every participant will agree with my hon. Friend. I respect the reason that he has introduced for the differential, and I think that he will agree that the differential is widened by the motion. By and large, the wealthier section of the community who back horses will not normally be found in the street corner betting shop. Conversely, many of those who bet in the corner shop will never be able to attend racecourses in the course of their working lives to place an on-course bet. It is a matter of concern that there should now be a differential between the two categories that is equivalent to 100 per cent. of the on-course duty.

I felt that it was necessary to examine the motion in some depth. It poses a number of issues that I know some of my hon. Friends wish to elaborate. I shall reiterate briefly the arguments that I have adduced. We believe that it is perverse to ask the House to accept a motion that will increase revenue and thereby diminish the Government's PSBR. However, if the Government are fixated by the need to maintain a total of £10½ billion, they can withdraw the concessions that they have offered to the wealthy.

If they spurn that offer, if they reject that option and if they are convinced that it is necessary to recoup lost revenue from betting and gaming, they should at least recoup the money by applying increases in the betting and gaming tax more equally to all sections of the population. At the very least they should involve those who frequent casinos in equal sacrifices to those that will be made by those who do not. The Government have not chosen to do that. They have asked the House to assist them in reducing their borrowing requirement to defend their concessions to the wealthy and to recoup the revenue in a way which will bear hardest on the lower income groups rather than the higher income groups. For that, the Treasury Bench deserves the contempt of the House.

1.30 am

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) was erudite. If I do not follow him in discussing the PBSR--[Hon. Members: "PSBR".] I stand corrected. It is not a subject which is discussed often in the betting shops which I frequent. It was educative to listen to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

I was bitterly disappointed at not being able to speak in the debate on tobacco tax. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison), who intimidated me, made certain that I did not make the contribution in that debate which I would have wished. It was not the Opposition Chief Whip who wanted the debate curtailed. I know his great interest in these matters. He is a Bristol Member and I would have been staggered had he wanted to curtail the attack on the Treasury Bench for inflicting further hardship on Bristol and one of its staple industries.

It was a bitter blow when I heard the package of further taxes announced last week, because I thought once again that the puritan faction in Parliament had won the day. I was surprised when I heard the defence of those supporting the Government. I do not believe the argument that those taxes have to be introduced because of the concession on derv. I agree thoroughly with the concession on derv.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

I believe that my Friend is confusing attitudes. While there is a puritanical attitude inside and outside the House which would lead people to demand more taxes on gambling, drinking or whatever our favourite activities might be, this is not a question of puritanism. It is simply a question of sheer, simpleminded, wrong-headed obstinacy in persevering with unattainable objectives by wrong-headed policies. When someone is forced to make one slight change, he tries to get back at the people who made him make that change in the most obstinate and unforgiving fashion. It is a question of obstinacy, not of morality.

Mr. Golding

The puritans were obstinate and unforgiving. It is part of their quality to be both obstinate and unforgiving. The reason why there are so few Conservative Members present for these important motions and why the contributions from the Opposition Benches have been so forceful is that these measures have been introduced by sour-faced, killjoy politicians on the Treasury Bench, while trying to initimidate their hon. Friends who forced on them a humiliating defeat on derv. I wish that they had been as successful with the tax on petrol. The price of petrol is far too high.

The Government were right to make the concession on derv. I represent an agricultural constituency, and the concession was important. They were wrong to impose the crippling burden in the first place.

It is not a question of a choice of tax on derv, betting, cigarettes, bingo or one-armed bandits. As many of my hon. Friends have made clear, the Government could have chosen not to give tax concessions to the rich when they came to office. They gave an advantage to the very rich with the changes in capital transfer tax. The choice is not between a tax on derv or on what the Royal Commission describes as amusements. It is between taxes that will hit working people hard and taxes that would not have hurt the rich to the same extent.

This is the first increase in off-course duty since 1974. Faced with financial stringency, the Labour Government did not increase the duty. Had there been good arguments for an increase, they would have snatched them. The duty was originally 2½ per cent. and was raised to 5 per cent. in 1968. In 1970, a differential was introduced between off-course bets, on which the rate was raised to 6 per cent., and on-course bets, which remained at 5 per cent. Bets by off-course bookmakers with bookmakers on the course were treated as on-course bets, and hedging bets by on-course bookmakers were exempted altogether. In 1972, the on-course rate was reduced to 4 per cent. In 1974, the off-course rate was increased to 7½ per cent. Those are the rates in force at present.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central made a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) may argue against. I do not attack the Government for not increasing the on-course betting duty. I should have been upset had they done so. People who go to the course are not necessarily rich, and those who use betting shops are not necessarily the least wealthy. It is not as simple as that. I enjoy going to Haydock Park, Chester and Uttoxeter. I meet my constituents at Haydock and Chester. They are not rich. They are craftsmen, miners and potters. They are ordinary working men who enjoy a day at the races.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know that the song "Blaydon Races" is not the anthem of the rich or the song of the aristocracy. It is a working-class song. Going to the races is not just an aristocratic pastime. The racecourses of this country could not exist on that patronage. There is a good cross-section of the community at our racecourses. I talk racing to many of my constituents—shop stewards, conveners, ordinary working people and others who enjoy watching racing on the "box" on a Saturday but who equally enjoy going to a racecourse. It is a fallacy to say that working people do not go to the racecourse. They do. Indeed, I should like more of them to do so.

If there is a distinction between the well off and the not so well off, it is in the method of off-course betting. The better-off and the rich bet off course as well as on the course, but they bet on the "blower" by having an account. There are differences in the level of betting between those who have an account and those who do not, but let us not say that the difference between on-course and off-course betting is a class issue, because it is not.

The argument in favour of low on-course betting duty is this. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow will wish to take this up later. First, punters like to bet at starting price odds. The average working-class betting shop punter bets at starting price rather than at a price quoted on the board by the bookmaker.

That starting price is determined primarily by the on-course betting. That is the dominant influence. If there is a strong market at the course, there will be a fair price which cannot so easily be manipulated, although it is always possible for prices to be manipulated. If, it is argued, the punter knows that the rate of tax is that much lower on course, he will go to the course and bet there. That strengthens the market. I must say that I am not sure about the strength of that argument. I think that it needs close examination. Nevertheless, that is the argument.

There is another argument for a lower rate of duty on course, however. Betting shop betting, allied today with television and particularly the "ITV Seven", is entirely parasitic. It is totally dependent upon racing taking place on racecourses. If the revenue at the racecourses falls, conditions worsen. One of the arguments for a lower rate of duty at the racecourse is that it will attract people away from the betting shops and from watching the "ITV Seven" on television to the scene of the action. Therefore, there are good arguments for the on-course betting duty being as low as possible.

Those involved in racing will argue strongly that in this country the State and the bookies take so much out of racing that it is important to find a way to get money into the sport itself. That means attracting people to attend race meetings. My hon. Friend is wrong to dismiss this country's racecourses as being purely for the rich and better-off.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

My hon. Friend led the House to believe that he would say why the Labour Government never sought to increase the levy above the rate in 1974. He may wish now to illuminate us on that subject.

Mr. Golding

I would not avoid that matter, but I felt under an obligation to educate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central. He will teach me economics, and I shall teach him the rudiments of gambling. One reason why the Labour Government would not increase the duty is the impact on working people, for many of whom the tax will be a further imposition. I intervened in my hon. Friend's speech to explain that when one bets in a betting shop one pays not only tax but the levy.

I look at my bet of last Saturday. I bet in 5p amounts. A "Heinz" bet is 57 bets in combination. At 5p a bet, that makes £2.85. I actually hand over £3.11. That figure is engraved on my heart; it is the most important in my life. I pay £2.85 for the bet, plus what I call the tax, but it is not a tax alone. There is the tax, on top of that the levy, and on top of that again an amount that the bookie takes for himself, squeezing a little extra out of the punter. One reason why a Labour Government would not have wished to increase the betting tax is that it would have had an impact on not only the punter but the levy.

When I read the newspapers the morning after the Chancellor's surreptitious announcement, I was disturbed to read that the bookies were thinking of making a deduction not of the present 9p, not of 9½p, which it would be if they added the ½p that the Government had put on, but of lop. The lop would be very damaging psychologically, and I am sure that the Government have not appreciated that.

The betting tax is an imposition on working people. I take the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central made about the casinos.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

Before my hon. Friend gets on to that, will he accept that a further reason for not increasing the off-course duty in this way is that illegal betting will be encouraged the greater the off-course duty is? Is he aware that for the past 10 weeks the staff of the betting duty control unit in Manchester have been on strike and that, as long as the Civil Service strike goes on, the chances of the Government collecting the duty even at the old rate, let alone at the new one, and properly enforcing the checking on the collection of this tax during the past 10 weeks will be very difficult?

Mr. Golding

When my hon. Friends ask me whether I am aware of illegal betting, it is like asking me whether I put on my trousers before leaving home in the morning. I must resist these "insulting" interventions and return to the education of my hon. Friends.

This increase in the betting tax must be taken with the increase in the bingo tax, the one-armed bandit tax, and the increase in the price of cigarettes following upon the increase in the price of a pint. All these have come together. In a previous debate, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) whether he realised the impact that all these would have on the pocket money of working men and women, and he said that he did. This is important, because when working men and women are assessing how badly off they are they do not look at the papers to study the retail price index or the tax arid prices index. They make a rough and ready judgment of how far their money is likely to go.

On Friday, working people to whom I spoke in the clubs in Newcastle were very angry about the attack on them that this proposal constituted. They are very upset that working-class amusements and pleasures are being taxed but that others are left untaxed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central dealt admirably with the casinos—the big scene, Park Lane gambling, the gambling of the very rich. He could have gone beyond that. I do not think that he will find many hon. Members on the Conservative Benches who gamble in that way, though there are perhaps a few. He could have highlighted the gambling in middle-class homes in the playing of bridge. Many middle-class people gamble when they play bridge. If that is their forte, they play cards. That will be completely unscathed, as will many of the games of chance and other forms of gambling.

Mr. Cook

I cannot resist returning the compliment that my hon. Friend has paid me on so many occasions by correcting the grievous errors I was making as a novice in these matters on what sort of people indulge in betting on course and off course. It is my duty to advise my hon. Friend that I have a room in my constituency which has been the committee room for my party for the past 30 years. It has been financed entirely by the bridge sweeps that are held twice a week by people who are in no way middle-class, but working-class people indulging in a pastime that they find amenable which has drawn them to that hall twice a week for 30 years.

Mr. Golding

Things are always different in Scotland. One will not find many English political parties financed by bridge. The working-class people in Scotland play golf and fish with the fly. Things are different here, so different that perhaps—

Mr. Mikardo

So different that they sometimes do not put their trousers on.

Mr. Golding

I must be careful to refer to the conditions here in England. People find few English Labour Party headquarters supported by bridge clubs. I am sure that I shall be unchallenged in that remark by my hon. Friends around me.

I speak with trepidation on the subject of illegal belting because I have had a number of all-winning bets with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. This being a Royal palace, it is exempt from the betting laws; and I have not paid any betting tax or levy or administration costs to the book. Illegal betting has been growing. Those who have knowledge of these things know, especially with small bets, that where there is a limit and the winnings are of no consequence, illegal betting has been on the increase. On factory floors there are illegal bookies who thrive. Outside I have been offered and piously refused bets without tax. All big factories can locate an individual on the shop floor with the status, although not the financial backing, of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. One may find someone who is prepared to take the punter's money and settle at starting prices. Illegal betting has been growing—

Mr. Straw

I wonder whether my hon. Friend will finish before 2.30.

Mr. Golding

I protest at the fact that members of the Front Bench, who in my day had a sense of responsibility, are now taking bets on the time that I shall finish my speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is doing his best to maintain decorum on the Front Bench, but with these younger Members it is difficult.

It is not surprising that illegal betting has been on the increase. If one pays 7½ per cent. tax, 0.9 per cent. for the levy and 6 per cent. for the bookmakers' bunce, that money could have been used for an additional bet. If working-class punters did not pay tax, the levy and a bit extra to the bookie, they could use the money for an additional bet.

There are deterrents. The bet that I have is called the "Heinz", which is a combination bet. If it comes up, the bookie may owe a lot of money. Some people prefer to bet with the big combines because their limit is £100,000. However, if one bets with the unofficial, illegal bookie on the shop floor, generally the limits are very much lower. Even if one theoretically were to win £100,000 on a combination bet with an illegal bookie, he could not or would not pay out. In order to avoid dispute and acrimony, the illegal bookies place a limit on their pay-outs.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)

My hon. Friend is referring to many of the abuses of the private enterprise system of bookmaking in Britain. Does he agree that the best way to protect the consumer would be to extend public ownership to betting? Should we not also make betting debts legal, because, as they are not even recognised in law at present, private entrepreneurs can treat the ordinary punter like rubbish and scrub the debts even when the punter wins? That is now the situation with betting, which is highly unsatisfactory. Only by increased public control, ownership and enterprise can we eradicate many of these abuses.

Mr. Golding

I shall be in difficulty if I follow that argument. I was dealing with illegal betting and its potential for growth. I am not talking about private enterprise and big companies. I am actually talking about workers' control and in some cases workers' cooperatives.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The motion relates to taxation, which allows for a pretty wide debate. I do not think that we ought to pursue that line of argument.

Mr. Golding

My hon. Friend led me astray. I apologise. I was determined not to be led astray, but it was the natural courtesy that we English owe to the Scots that led me along that path.

Mr. Mikardo

My hon. Friend cannot resist temptation.

Mr. Golding

I have never been able to resist temptation. If I were able to resist temptation, I would not be making this contribution because I would pass betting shops by, just as I would reject bingo tickets and leave the one-armed bandits alone.

Illegal betting is now a serious possibility, even though I absolutely support the levy board. However, the Government betting tax, the levy and the more than 1 per cent. that the bookies will get for nothing will take the deduction to 10 per cent. The psychological impact of that will be very great. It will drive many people away from the betting shops and credit betting to illicit bets. There is the possibility that the Government will lose money. It is possible that by increasing the duty the revenue will fall because of the impact on the amount of betting and because it may increase the illegal betting.

Mr. Cook

May I refer my hon. Friend to page 26 of the Rothschild report? He is right to say that the Commission drew attention to the potential loss of revenue, but in paragraph 6.8 on page 26 the Commission makes the point which he has elaborated—that illegal betting could increase once the combined rates have exceeded a certain critical point. The evidence it received is that the present combined rate—that is, before the ½ per cent. increase that we are being asked to consider tonight—is running dangerously close to the point at which illegal betting would increase.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the risk that this could result in a fall in revenue to the Treasury, I am sure that he will place equal emphasis on the other point made in that paragraph, where the Royal Commission adds: The consequences of over-taxing betting are not, as in the case of other duties, merely the loss of revenue … There are serious social evils which would follow from a return to the state of affairs which existed before 1960. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that that is an additional point which, if anything, transcends the loss of revenue which could flow from putting up the combined rate to too high a level.

Mr. Golding

It is at this point that I must protest about the Rothschild Commission. It states that The consequences of over-taxing betting are not, as in the case of other duties, merely a loss of revenue and a fall in demand for the taxed commodity. There are serious social evils which would follow from a return to the state of affairs which existed before 1960. What were the social evils? That passage is an example of the puritanism that I attacked earlier.

When I was a kid I used to nip in and out of the illegal betting shops. I used to give people bets. I used to run with bets. I did not see the social evils that the Rothschild Commission talks about. It was not a desirable state of affairs. I can remember being caught at the age of 14 as I was going into a bookmaker's premises in Chester. When the copper pinched me I had to pretend that I was going to have my hair cut. That was not a desirable state of affairs, but what social evil is there in putting a shilling on a horse? What social evil is there in having a bet on a Saturday on ITV and in sitting and dreaming that a quarter of a million pounds will come one's way on that day?

Mr. Cook

It is important to the House to clarify this point. My hon. Friend will appreciate that again I cannot speak on this matter from first-hand knowledge, for before 1960, when the gaming legislation was introduced, I was of an age at which, if my father had caught me putting a shilling on a horse, I would have got two very flat ears straight away. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to the Rothschild Commission. My hon. Friend wished to have pointed out to him the serious social evils of illegal betting. I ask him to comment on paragraph 6.2, on which I am not in a position to judge. The last sentence states: the law produced resentment and attempts to corrupt the police, contempt for authority and a bookmaking trade operating outside the law, prey to protection rackets and gang violence".

I am sure that my hon. Friend played no part in gang violence or protection rackets. However, the Rothschild Commission was persuaded that, at some point in the past, these things obtained. I am sure that if they did obtain, my hon. Friend would agree that they constituted serious social evils.

Mr. Golding

I accept, from the point of view of the bookies, what my hon. Friend states. I do not believe, however, that there would be a return to the situation he has described if there was a mixture of off-course bookie shops together with illegal bookies in factories and offices. My father, too, would have been most upset if he had caught me betting or playing cards. Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he was a good Nonconformist.

I have mentioned on a couple of occasions the impact on the levy. I am bitterly disappointed that many members of the racing group of the Commons are not present on the Conservative Benches. I have joined those hon. Members and others among my hon. Friends on many occasions to plead the cause of racing and to plead that its finances should be placed on a better footing. I was pleased also to work with those hon. Members and with the Liberals, who are also absent, to tighten up the law on the levy. They should be present. I should have thought it is apparent that the Government have taken more money out of racing by adding the ½ per cent. on to the tax and giving bookmakers the excuse to add another ½ per cent. to their deductions, making a total of 1 per cent. This will mean difficulties for the Horserace Betting Levy Board when it seeks to persuade the Home Secretary to increase the present levy.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

It is a happy conjunction of circumstances that my hon. Friend should be taking part in the debate and that I should have a surplus 50p in my pocket. My hon. Friend, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), may care to bet that none of the hon. Members to whom he has referred will attend this debate and also that none will vote against this iniquitous measure.

Mr. Mikardo

That is a racing certainty.

Mr. Golding

I am ashamed to hear the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. It is always foolish to bet in a situation where the result can be altered by one's bet. I could accept the bet of 50p, ring up one of the hon. Members in the racing group and give him half the proceeds of the 50p to get him to vote against the Government tonight. It would be what Damon Runyon called "Daddy, I've got cider in my ear."

Mr. Austin Mitchell

My hon. Friend is doing a ministerial-type dodging act. Does he accept the bet or not?

Mr. Golding

It would be unprofessional to accept the bet in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, who has that monopoly in the House of Commons. If I met my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby on the factory floor, perhaps I could entertain his bet. However, the monopoly is firmly established on the Opposition Front Bench below the Gangway. I cannot take business from my hon. Friend. He obviously needs the money.

I have been diverted. Racing is financed from several sources. In Hong Kong the State does not tax bookmakers. In a haven of private enterprise there is total public ownership. The Tote has the monopoly. In this country racing is financed directly from the proceeds of the Tote. In France and Australia it is also financed by the proceeds of gambling.

Mr. Canavan

I hope that my hon. Friend is not using Hong Kong as an example of how racing should be run. The Hong Kong jockey club has more power in Hong Kong than the British Government. Not long ago the Hong Kong Government gifted to the jockey club hundreds of acres of land which could have been used to house many homeless people in Hong Kong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go further astray.

Mr. Golding

The remark of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) was irrelevant. I am sorry that I gave way, because I thought that he would make a serious remark about horseracing.

The horseracing industry believes that it is deprived of finance. I speak not from a brief from the industry but on behalf of myself and my constituents. If I were to speak from a brief from the industry, I should say that the Government already take too much money out of racing. I am sure that the Government have been, and will be, presented with comparisons of what they take out of racing and what is taken by, for example, the Government of the Republic of Ireland, where racing is allowed to flourish.

If I were speaking from a brief prepared by the industry I would say that racing in this country has suffered because prize money is too low and the cost of training is too high. Therefore, class horses are taken to be trained in France or Ireland. The industry would also say, and I endorse this argument, that, because of the lack of money in racing, courses are not as attractive as they might be and facilities are not as good as they should be.

The levy board has done a reasonable job in bringing about improvements on courses, but further substantial improvements are needed. Because the board is short of money, it has made proposals that would lead to the severe neglect of some courses. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) has spoken previously from a good brief on racecourses in the West Midlands, where some courses have been neglected because of the lack of finance, with the result that facilities for spectators are very poor. I have visited the course at Wolverhampton, which is one of those mentioned by my hon. Friend as needing additional finance.

When I first spoke in the House about horse racing, I had to tell John Temple, the then hon. Member for City of Chester, that, while he and his friends saw the races when they went to Chester, my friends often saw no more than the jockeys' caps as the horses swept past. Standards and facilities are inadequate on many courses. In this regard I was bitterly disappointed to learn that Chester racecourse may be neglected. It has more character than most other courses.

The neglect has come about because the Government have taken money out of racing but put none in. The only way in which finance is put into the sport is through the levy, and the high level of taxation has made it difficult to impose a high levy. As the Government increase taxes and the bookies increase their bunce, it becomes increasingly difficult to get more money into the levy.

I have the nineteenth report of the Horserace Betting Levy Board. It states "Not to be removed from the Library". My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was not permitted to take the report from the Library. I am willing to sacrifice this volume to him when I have concluded my contribution. It reports on the revenues of the board and the levies on bookmakers. It is clear that the board is doing a useful job. However, there is a bigger job to be done which it cannot do because of the restrictions upon it.

What use will be made of the additional money? What will the Government do to help racing overcome some of the difficulties that I have outlined? I am sure that the Conservative Deputy Chief Whip would answer if he could. It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield will not answer. Are the Government aware of all the problems that they are creating for the racing industry by imposing the tax? Do they not realise that the tax was not increased by the Labour Government because they realised the many ill consequences for the racing industry?

I do not want to end my contribution without mentioning one important issue. The betting industry has an area of low pay. Friends of mine do marking up for bookies. It is not a well-paid job. One of the consequences of the increase in betting tax will be the impact on the pay of those employed by the bookies. Have the Government considered the consequences of the rise—not from 7.5 to 8 per cent. as the Government claim but from 9 to 10 per cent.—on pay and employment in the betting industry?

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)

I have listened intently to my hon. Friend's remarks. I was tempted to intervene when he mentioned "Blaydon Races". I resisted that temptation because I was interested in his speech. He mentioned the shop floor, the conveners, the pottery workers and the miners, but he did not mention the implications of the increase on old-age pensioners. I hope that he will do so. They often like a little flutter, especially on Grand National day. Will my hon. Friend explain the implications of the increase on old-age pensioners?

Mr. Golding

I was hoping to leave that point until I made a contribution later on the other motions relating to bingo and one-armed bandits. I take the point that the increase in betting tax will have an impact on the elderly. Those who will suffer by the squeezing of the levy are those who work in the industry. Stable boys, many jockeys and many of those who work on the racecourses earn very low wages.

There will be a great psychological impact as a result of the change in the operation of the betting tax. Those who bet may be divided into optimists and pessimists. The optimists are those who pay tax on their bets. The pessimists are those who pay on their winnings. In every betting shop one can separate the optimists from the pessimists. The optimists pay tax on their bets. For my bet here I should pay the difference between £2.85 and £3.11 and pay it gladly.

Mr. Cook

Did my hon. Friend win?

Mr. Golding

No one would show a losing betting slip. No one would refer to a losing betting slip. That question reveals the depth of ignorance of my hon. Friend. Would any punter display a losing betting slip?

Mr. George Foulkes (South Ayrshire)

An Irish one might.

Mr. Golding

That is possible. However, I despair of my hon. Friend. How could he ask such a question after hours of tuition? If I had won, I should have had to pay much more tax. It would have been necessary for me to pay a percentage of the winnings rather than a percentage of the stake.

I am concerned that we may be causing the optimists to become pessimists. You sit as silent as a Nonconformist, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but others of my colleagues who have obviously frequented betting shops understand the importance of the social change that the Government are to inflict on the betting shop community. Punters will be hesitant about whether to pay tax on the nail. If a punter puts his money down, he will have to pay 10 per cent. There will be a temptation to take a risk and to pay the tax on the winnings. That will be a bad social change. Have the Government calculated the impact of the change? The answer is probably that it is for the bookie to decide.

Bets have been struck and won and lost tonight. I deplore the fact that those who have laid bets have paid neither tax nor levy and have failed to make any contribution to the bookmaker.

I strongly urge the House to oppose the increase. It is totally unnecessary and unjust and will take a lot more explaining from the Chief Secretary than we had from the slight and insulting introduction earlier at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Brittan

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Leon Brittan.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is noticeable tonight that, following interventions of the Chief Secretary, the Government Chief Whip has sought to move the closure of the debate. May we presume that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to intervene at this stage, the Chief Whip intends to do the same again? If so, is not that grossly unfair? Could it be made clear that, as many Opposition Members wish to intervene, we shall be given adequate opportunity to speak on this highly important matter? If the Chief Whip intends to move the closure, it is a gross abuse of parliamentary procedures when many of us have been here for the greater part the night waiting to speak in the debate. Members may feel robbed of the opportunity to put their case. It would be as well if the Chief Secretary would say that it is not the Government's intention to curtail the debate at this early hour of the morning.

Mr. Mikardo

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may have observed that during the debate there have been a number of references to me and to my views, not all of them accurate. It would be a remarkable departure from the normal practices and courtesies of the House if the debate were so truncated that I were not able to make some observations on those references which have been made directly to me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. With reference to the point of order made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), no closure has been moved, as far as I am aware, during the debates on the Ways and Means motions. With regard to the point of order of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), I am not closing the debate but calling hon. Members to speak. When a member of the Government rose, I thought that he was entitled to speak.

Mr. Foulkes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate what you have just said, but so far we have had an introduction by the Chief Secretary and two speeches from the Labour Benches. That is not sufficient before calling on the Chief Secretary to reply to the debate. Surely it would be better to hear a number of other contributions so that the Chief Secretary can properly reply to the debate and not be called a third time to deal with the points which my colleagues and I will make. Would it not he sensible for the Chief Secretary to reply later?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend has said, only two Opposition Members have been given the opportunity to speak in the debate. As a relatively new Member of the House, having been elected two years ago, I can recall no precedent for so few Opposition speakers then having to make way for the Government Chief Whip to move the closure against the interests of the whole House. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that, whatever the Government's intentions tonight, we have the fairest treatment to ensure that every Opposition view is reflected in this important debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is not for me to argue the case. I can deal only with the rules of the House. At the moment, the selection of speakers is within my discretion. I am simply selecting speakers. I have called a member of the Government because he rose to speak.

Mr. Cook

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a matter for the Chief Secretary to decide whether he wishes to intervene now. I should have thought that it would be more advantageous to the House if he intervened later in the debate. That is a matter for him to judge. I accept that it would be a convention of the House that, should he decide to rise in his place, it would be for you to call him, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

However, you referred earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that no closure motion had been moved. That is, indeed. the case. What has caused anxiety is that the Chief Secretary rising at the Dispatch Box may be preparatory to the moving of such a motion. Should that occur, you will be aware that it is within your discretion whether to accept the motion. I hope that in making your decision you will bear in mind that we have had only one solitary Back Bench contribution, and it would be most unreasonable if the debate were truncated after only that one intervention, particularly when a number of hon. Members have been present throughout the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), to whom reference has been made and who is widely accepted as an expert in the field, certainly in regard to placing bets. Should such a motion be moved by the Government, I hope that you would weigh those factors carefully in the balance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has put his point fairly. I assure him that the Chair carefully considers curtailment of a debate or whether to accept a closure motion. However, I am dealing now with the selection of speakers. Mr. Leon Brittan.

2.42 am

Mr. Brittan

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) started by developing the general arguments put by his right hon. Friends in the earlier debate on whether it was necessary or sensible to recoup the money that the Government were no longer obtaining through the derv change. I shall not deal with those points, as I have nothing to add to what I said in the earlier debate.

However, the hon. Gentleman went on more specifically to say that, if there was a necessity to recoup—which I readily accept was not his view—it should be done by reference to the concessions that had been made; one should recoup by withdrawing them. He regarded that as logical and invited the Government to revoke the concession, and, in particular, to turn to CTT. He suggested that, if one did that, it would be possible to obtain the money that would otherwise be obtained through the changes proposed in this motion and the two following ones. However, he was not comparing like with like. He was comparing the yield in a full year with that in 1981–82, and for the purposes of recouping we are concerned with the yield in 1981–82.

In the first column of table 2 in the Red Book, one can see that many of the capital tax changes have a negligible cost in 1981–82. In total, the cost to the revenue of the reliefs in 1981–82 is only £5 million, so a withdrawal of the reliefs would make a minuscule contribution to the requirement for recoupment.

Turning to the full-year figures, one finds that the relief on capital taxes will, indeed, cost £35 million, but that is not in 1981–82. Moreover, against that must be offset the anti-avoidance measures which will yield £50 million as table 2 shows. Therefore, the net gain to the revenue in a full year would be £15 million and the net loss in this year would be only £5 million, so I do not accept that that is an option that the Government could be reasonably expected to have applied in seeking a way to handle the matter.

Mr. Cook

I entirely accept the Chief Secretary's point about those figures relating to a full year. I think that the Official Report will show that I made that clear when quoting them to the House by referring to the fact that I was quoting the second column relating to revenue for a full year.

I must pick up the Chief Secretary's last reference to the anti-avoidance change which will produce an additional revenue of £4 million. There is no logical reason to suggest that if the concessions contained in other clauses on relaxation of capital taxation were withheld he would necessarily be obliged to drop the changes in the anti-avoidance rules. As he well knows, those changes are a direct consequence of the ruling on the Vestey case and subsequent publicity. I think that he would be most ill advised, for public relations reasons if for no other reason, to seek to drop them. There is no necessary correlation between that change and the other concessions that the Government have offered to the wealthy.

Mr. Brittan

That is exactly my point. I do not think that there is a necessary correlation, but if the hon. Gentleman chooses to talk about capital taxes he must consider the picture as a whole. He cannot just pick and choose. The point remains that for 1981–82 the figures are quite different and involve only £5 million. The recoupment relates to 1981–82. The figures of £65 million and £20 million relate solely to 1981–82. What is to happen in 1982–83 is a matter that falls to be considered when the Budget for that year is considered.

Mr. Foulkes

rose—

Mr. Brittan

No, I shall not give way. I must make progress.

The other main question that was raised concerned the suggestion that in some way this measure discriminated against the working class. I was asked why, when revenue was being raised by the increase in this measure and those relating to bingo and machines, there was nothing relating to casino gaming. Following the recommendations of the Royal Commission on gambling, the duty on casinos was completely restructured in the 1980 Budget. I do not pretend that the full recommendations were implemented, but there was a major change. Instead of being based on the rateable value and number of tables of a casino, the new duty is designed to reflect the profitability of particular enterprises.

Mr. Mikardo

Trivial.

Mr. Brittan

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) remarks from a sedentary position that it is trivial. The figures are difficult to assess precisely because there are other changes affecting the industry, including the fact that some casinos are now no longer in operation. On the same basis as 1980–81, however, the yield under the old form of taxation was about £6 million. On that basis, in the absence of the changes which I have said are likely to take place, the yield would now be £18 million. I do not regard a tripling of the yield as trivial.

Transitional arrangements were necessary, and the new duty does not come fully into effect until this year. When a new duty is introduced which on a like basis triples the yield, I think that it is sensible to wait until one can make a realistic assessment of the new duty before making any further changes.

Finally, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central spoke of the relative proportions of off-course and on-course duty. I can only say that, to judge from his hon. Friends' reaction, he showed that he has one thing in common with me, namely, that his knowledge of these matters is largely theoretical. I do not claim to have an extensive practical knowledge, although I can claim perhaps a little.

Mr. Foulkes

rose—

Mr. Brittan

No, I am not giving way.

The response of the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central showed that his knowledge was indeed theoretical and not in accordance with experience.

Mr. Foulkes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chief Secretary has constantly referred to a recoupment of £20 million but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. There can be no point of order arising from what the Chief Secretary says.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but MR.DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Foulkes

I raised the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we are dealing with only one motion, motion No. 5. We have had no reference to the amount of money that is being recouped by it. Motions Nos. 6 and 7 are constantly being referred to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman may not have been here as long as some other hon. Members, but he knows that the contents of a Minister's speech are nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat impatiently for two and a half hours and listened to a small number of long speeches. I have many genuine points to raise, and I have no intention of filibustering. Yet the Chief Whip has sought to curtail a debate that is just beginning. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the interests of parliamentary democracy and of millions of punters who are waiting for points to be seriously made, to refuse the bogus intervention of the Government Chief Whip.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I indicated that I was not disposed to accept the motion at that time.

Mr. Jopling

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

2.52 am

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)

May I on behalf of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for the decision that you have just made. It would have been a travesty, a distortion of our normal procedures, if, after a debate in which the Chief Secretary moved the motion, there was a reply from the Opposition Front Bench, there was one Back-Bench speaker, the Chief Secretary spoke again, without asking the leave of the House, so that he had made 50 per cent. of all the speeches—

Mr. Foulkes

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mikardo

I hope that my hon. Friend will let me make my point in my own way. I was about to say that it would have been a travesty if the debate had been truncated.

I begin by referring to the points made in the previous debate and this debate about fine tuning and about the Treasury's rather arrogrant, pretentious claim to be able to estimate so precisely future trends in income and expenditure that it can judge to within a fraction of 1 per cent. what an outturn will be. I think that I am right in saying that since we started the debate on the Ways and Means motions I have been the only Member here who was present the first time the Treasury tried out this confidence trick of a fine tuning exercise.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Wakefield)

I was here.

Mr. Mikardo

I am sorry. It shows how modest and withdrawing a man my hon. Friend is that we do not notice him when we should.

It was almost exactly 30 years ago, in the Budget of 1951, that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer told us solemnly that he would not be able to balance the Budget if the House refused him a charge on dentures and spectacles that would yield in that year £13 million. Those were the days before we had rocketed into stratospheric and astronomical figures of income and expenditure. But in real terms £13 million then was a much greater sum than the amount that we are discussing in these Ways and Means resolutions.

The then Chancellor of the Exchequer told us with absolute conviction, and he had all the clever fellows in the Treasury who had put his feet on the path. He said that without that £13 million the Budget could not be balanced. In the outturn, the surplus in the Budget was rather more than 16 times that £13 million. Ever since that day 30 years ago I have always been sceptical of these fancy claims, made with such dogmatism and confidence by the Treasury as though it was dealing with an exact science instead of with a very inexact one.

I turn to some of the implications of this motion. I support very strongly the main argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) that this is a discriminatory measure designed deliberately to fall most heavily on the working-class section of the population. That is the key element in this measure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central did not get all the detail of the argument right, as he recognised might be the case. If occasionally he was only 99 per cent. right, that is doubtless due to the fact that, as the actress said to the bishop, "No amount of book learning will ever compensate for a lack of practical experience on the job." But the main argument of my hon. Friend was 110 per cent. right. Of all the very many forms of gambling that go on—a lot of them have been mentioned, but a lot more have not—the two that have been picked on in this motion and the one that is to follow it are predominantly the recreation and the practice of the working class. The Government have chosen only those two for an increase.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Aberdeenshire, East)

Nonsense.

Mr. Mikardo

There can be no argument about that. It is clear that it is part of the normal practice of the Government of seeking to advantage those who are better off and to disadvantage those who are less well off.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) pointed out, there is some justification for having a lower rate of tax on on-course betting.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) to be gesticulating with his fist to one of his hon. Friends at the rear of the Chamber?

Mr. McQuarrie

Not in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that the incident to which he referred is not within my sight.

Mr. Mikardo

When my hon. Friend has been here longer, he will get used to the fact that some hon. Gentlemen get hilarious as a result of their supper. The roast beef affects their behaviour. They are always more hilarious after their supper than before. Some of them have not cut their teeth yet and cannot stomach roast beef properly, so they misbehave themselves.

Of all the multifarious forms of gambling, the Government have attacked only those that are working-class habits. There is some justification for having a lower rate on on-course betting. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme exaggerated. It does not take all that much to make a market. That argument is greatly exaggerated. These days, much of the money comes from the market that is wired to the course from off-course betting shops. It is not the on-course punter who makes the market. I do not think, therefore, that the case is strong enough to justify a rate of tax on off-course betting that is double that of the rate on on-course betting.

It is significant that the motion is confined to off-course betting. It is true, as my hon. Friend said, that some working-class people go to racecourses, but not very often. There were three meetings today. I would imagine that between 12,000 and 15,000 people attended the three meetings. Hundreds of thousands of people have gone into betting shops today, so going to the course is the marginal odd day out occasionally for the working man. It is not his avocation but the avocation of much better-off people. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, with all his experience, was wrong because the average working man is not induced to go racing because the tax is lower. The ordinary chap who goes to a racecourse and has a fiver on each of the six races spends £30. The tax on £30 is £1.20. He will not go 50 miles to a racecourse, which will cost him a fiver in fares, and pay £2.50 to go in to save £1.20 in tax. One goes to a racecourse because it is a fun day out, not to save the tax.

There is no justification, if the Government wanted to increase the tax on horseracing as one way of getting their own back on their Back Benchers for their misbehaviour over derv, for the increase being confined to off-course bets.

If it had been on both on-course and off-course I would not have gone into the Lobby against it, because there would have been some justification for it. It is the discrimination that gets me. It is discriminatory only between on-course and off-course betting. Casinos have been mentioned. The Chief Secretary read the changes that have been made in casinos. What percentage of the £18 million paid into casinos does a punter pay out? It is microscopic. It is not 8 per cent., 4 per cent. or 1 per cent. It is not a small fraction of 1 per cent. It is microscopic.

I may educate the Chief Secretary in these matters, but the punter in the casino starts, leaving aside the tax, with an advantage over the punter on the horses, because the margin of profit taken by the casino, on the arithmetic of a roulette wheel, is a little under 3 per cent., whereas the margin taken by the bookmaker varies, according to the race, the type of race, and the size of the field, between 5 per cent. and 15 per cent. and probably averages 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. The punter on horses starts with a disadvantage anyhow, and the casino chap starts with an advantage. In addition, he has had a small fraction of 1 per cent. loaded on him in tax, compared with the 8 per cent. on the chap who goes into the betting shop.

There is a world of difference between the betting of the well-off bod in the members' enclosure, who goes to the bookie on the rails and whispers out of the corner of his mouth a bet of £2,000, £3,000 or £4,000, and the betting of Joe Bloggs who goes into the betting shop.

Many Joe Bloggs have the same bet every day—10p each way, each up and down double stakes, "Brer Fox" and "Brer Rabbit" any to come, three cross doubles and a treble, 25p on "White Elephant", "Blue Elephant" and "Green Elephant". That chap lays out his 40p a day and inevitably loses the whole of it or occasionally nearly the whole of it. Once in every three years he will cop, he will get about 20 or 25 quid, according to the prices of the horses, and he will take the old woman on a day out to the seaside. It is that chap whom the Chief Secretary is penalising.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Had my hon. Friend been able to attend the Finance Bill Committee, which he was not because of his other busy activities, he would have noticed that Labour Members repeatedly drew attention to the class factor that exists in every area of the Budget strategy. Perhaps he will indicate the extent which he believes class matters—prejudices to a certain extent—have determined the Government's attitude to the way in which they have introduced these levies.

Mr. Mikardo

I regret not having the opportunity to take part in the Finance Bill Committee. While my hon. Friend was enjoying himself there, I was enjoying myself equally in the Committee on the British Telecommunications Bill, on which we also had an interesting Report stage.

Every Conservative Government, in their actions and fiscal policy, discriminate against the working class. They are doing so now by their discrimination between on-course and off-course. They are doing it by leaving all the gambling of the rich virtually untaxed.

I have mentioned casinos. What is the biggest betting shop in Great Britain with the largest turnover by far—a turnover of the same order as the total turnover of all other betting shops put together? It is the Stock Exchange. Only a small fraction of the work of the Stock Exchange is concerned with raising capital for industry.

Although the turnover of our Stock Exchange is very much larger than that of the Bourse in Paris or the Wechsel in Frankfurt, the amount of new capital raised is very much smaller. A far higher proportion of transactions in the Stock Exchange than in any other exchange in the world, with the possible exception of Hong Kong, is speculative rather than genuine commercial investment. It is a gamble.

It is possible to visit the Stock Exchange and stand on a balcony with some nicely garbed young ladies who will explain the processes, if they need to be explained. Anyone who has been in a betting shop does not need to have them explained because the processes are exactly the same. There are the men chalking up the prices on the wall. As soon as a popular figure is chalked up, the punters all rush like mad to get on their bets, elbowing people on the way and not caring who they knock down in the mad rush. It is exactly the same. As soon as the punters have rushed in, the figure is scrubbed off and a different figure is put on. That is exactly the process that goes on in a betting shop. The Stock Exchange is a colossal betting shop, but not one farthing's worth of tax is paid on the transactions.

It is much cheaper to gamble on one's guess about which shares will get their nose first past the post than on which quadruped will get its nose first past the post. It can be done absolutely untaxed.

Some gambling is boring. I never go into a casino, because nothing is more boring than that. I cannot understand people who can stand watching a little ball hopping around in a wheel and purport to make a judgment on which slot the ball will fall into at the end. The only true gambler is the one who will put money on the exercise of his judgment of some issue or who will put money on something where at least he has the illusion that he is exercising some judgment. But putting money on a ball hopping around the edge of a wheel is for morons. I cannot imagine anyone who was as bright as a half-wit spending his time in that way.

Mr. Golding

I hope that my hon. Friend will not go too far along this line, because I hope later to be arguing the cause of bingo. As my hon. Friends know, bingo is dependent upon the little balls bouncing around and coming out in a particular way. Those whom I represent and who love bingo cannot be described as morons.

Mr. Mikardo

My only observation on my hon. Friend's intervention is that I do not play bingo, for the same reason as I do not play roulette. But I have been talking about the rich man's gambling on the Stock Exchange that goes absolutely scot-free.

Anyone who gets bored with the Stock Exchange can go down the road a few hundred yards to one of the commodity exchanges. Only a microscopic part of the work of the commodity exchanges is concerned with supplying goods from those who want to sell them to those who want to buy them. The great majority of the work is gambling. One bets on one's assessment of whether cocoa or tin or whatever it may be will be dearer or cheaper in three months' time than it is now. About 98 per cent. of all the transactions on the commodity exchanges consist of buying things one does not want or selling things one has not got. That is what all the business of futures is about. It is a gamble, and there is not a penny of tax paid on any of it. I could list many more.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Lloyd's.

Mr. Mikardo

Yes, in a way, but it is not quite parallel. There is a common strain that runs through them all. We shall see it again when we come to the motion dealing with bingo. I shall look forward to joining my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in making some observations on that.

The Government wanted to recoup a part of the lost £85 million out of gambling. What did they do? They looked around and they found the only two forms of gambling which are predominantly conducted by the working class, and they increased the duty on those and on no other forms of gambling. This will be noted among the people of the country. I dare say that it will be noted among some people in Warrington between now and the end of the week. It will not go unremarked, unnoticed or unreminded. It shows the Government in their true colours as the most class-ridden institution in this country.

Mr. Michael Jopling

rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 21.

Division No.249]	[3.15 am
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ancram, Michael	Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Arnold, Tom	Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)	Braine, Sir Bernard
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Bright, Graham
Banks, Robert	Brinton, Tim
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Brittan, Leon
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Brotherton, Michael
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Browne, John (Winchester)
Best, Keith	Bruce-Gardyne, John
Biggs-Davison, John	Buck, Antony
Blackburn, John	Bulmer, Esmond

Butcher, John	Moate, Roger
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Morgan, Geraint
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Neale, Gerrard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Neubert, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Newton, Tony
Clegg, Sir Walter	Onslow, Cranley
Colvin, Michael	Osborn, John
Cope, John	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Corrie, John	Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Cranborne, Viscount	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Parris, Matthew
Dover, Denshore	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Pattie, Geoffrey
Emery, Peter	Proctor, K. Harvey
Fairgrieve, Russell	Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Renton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Shersby, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair	Silvester, Fred
Gow, Ian	Skeet, T. H. H.
Greenway, Harry	Speed, Keith
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)	Speller, Tony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Grist, Ian	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Gummer, John Selwyn	Sproat, Iain
Hamilton, Hon A.	Squire, Robin
Hawkins, Paul	Stainton, Keith
Hawksley, Warren	Stanbrook, Ivor
Heddle, John	Steen, Anthony
Henderson, Barry	Stevens, Martin
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Kershaw, Anthony	Thompson, Donald
Lang, Ian	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Le Marchant, Spencer	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Trippier, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Viggers, Peter
Macfarlane, Neil	Waddington, David
MacGregor, John	Wakeham, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)	Walker, B. (Perth )
McQuarrie, Albert	Waller, Gary
Major, John	Watson, John
Marlow, Tony	Wells, Bowen
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Wheeler, John
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus	Wickenden, Keith
Mawby, Ray	Wolfson, Mark
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Mellor, David	Tellers for the Ayes:
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Mr. Carol Mather and
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Mr. Peter Brooke.
Mills, Iain (Meriden)

NOES
Ashton, Joe	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Cook, Robin F.	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Cryer, Bob	Skinner, Dennis
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Straw, Jack
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)	Tinn, James
Dixon, Donald	Welsh, Michael
Foulkes, George	Woolmer, Kenneth
George, Bruce
Golding, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Mr. Frank Haynes and
Hooley, Frank	Mr. Allen McKay.
Mikardo, Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided:Ayes 109, Noes 22.

Division No. 250]	[3.25 am
AYES
Alexander, Richard	MacGregor, John
Ancram, Michael	Major, John
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Marlow, Tony
Banks, Robert	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Mawby, Ray
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Mellor, David
Berry, Hon Anthony	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Best, Keith	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Biggs-Davison, John	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Blackburn, John	Moate, Roger
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Morgan, Geraint
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Neale, Gerrard
Braine, Sir Bernard	Neubert, Michael
Bright, Graham	Newton, Tony
Brinton, Tim	Onslow, Cranley
Brittan, Leon	Osborn, John
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Browne, John (Winchester)	Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Butcher, John	Pattie, Geoffrey
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Proctor, K. Harvey
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Renton, Tim
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Clegg, Sir Walter	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Colvin, Michael	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Cope, John	Silvester, Fred
Cranborne, Viscount	Skeet, T. H. H.
Dover, Denshore	Speed, Keith
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Speller, Tony
Fairgrieve, Russell	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Stainton, Keith
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Stanbrook, Ivor
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles	Stevens, Martin
Fookes, Miss Janet	Stradling Thomas, J.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Alastair	Thompson, Donald
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Griffiths, (Peter Portsm'th N)	Trippier, David
Grist, Ian	Viggers, Peter
Hamilton, Hon A.	Waddington, David
Hawkins, Paul	Wakeham, John
Hawksley, Warren	Walker, B. (Perth)
Heddle, John	Waller, Gary
Henderson, Barry	Watson, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Wells, Bowen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Wheeler, John
Kershaw, Anthony	Wickenden, Keith
Lang, Ian	Wolfson, Mark
Le Marchant, Spencer
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Mr. Peter Brooke and
Lyell, Nicholas	Mr. Selwyn Gummer.
Macfarlane, Neil

NOES
Ashton, Joe	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Mikardo, Ian
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Cook, Robin F.	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Cryer, Bob	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Skinner, Dennis
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)	Straw, Jack
Dixon, Donald	Welsh, Michael
Foulkes, George	Woolmer, Kenneth
George, Bruce
Golding, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Mr. James Tinn and
Hooley, Frank	Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the general betting duty chargeable under section 1 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1972 or section 16 of the Miscellaneous Transferred Excise Duties Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 in respect of any bet made on or after 12th July 1981 which is not an on-course bet within the meaning of the section in question shall be of an amount equal to 8 per cent. of the amount staked. And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.