HL Deb 03 May 1904 vol 134 cc223-35

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the day for the Second Reading read.

* LORD DAVEY

My Lords, this Bill which I propose to ask your Lordships to read a second time is the Bill of last year with the omission of those provisions which, I think, led to its rejection. I understand that the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill last year will not now oppose it in its present form. The Bill as it now comes before your Lordships is in substance a Bill for the better suppression of street betting, and there are two additions, to which I will draw particular attention when I refer to the Bill itself. I repeat that the substance of the measure is the suppression of street betting, and if your Lord-ships approve of that object I hope you will read the Bill a second time.

I think it is unnecessary for me to take up any great portion of your Lordships' time in referring either to the great prevalence of street betting or to the inadequacy of the present law to meet that evil. I would remind your Lordships that your Select Committee on Betting in the year 1902 said— When a street bookmaker is convicted twenty-five times in four years and is able to pay £137 odd in fines and costs—to take a typical example of many cases that have been brought to the notice of the Committee—it is obvious that the profits of his calling are very great, and that the penalties provided by the law are not sufficiently strong. I would also remind your Lordships that one of the greatest evils attaching to this form of street betting is the way in which women and children are encouraged to bet. There was evidence before the Select Committee of children of tender years being seen going to a member of this fraternity and offering their coppers, and we had also evidence by police superintendents of the way in which the betting fraternity haunt corners of streets and solicit workmen coming and returning from their work, and, when the workmen are at work, solicit their wives at their house doors. I will not allude further to the evils which this Bill is intended to meet, but I may mention that since the subject was before your Lordships last year I have had a number of communications upon it. I received a letter from the Lord Mayor of Manchester, enclosing a report of a meeting held for the City and the borough of Salford, at which he presided, and at which a resolution was passed strongly urging the Watch Committee to formulate bylaws and take any other measures which were practicable for effectually dealing with the great and alarming increase of street betting, for diminishing inducements to bet, and forbidding the sale of tips or printed matter referring to betting. I also received a communication from the same source approving of the Bill which was before your Lordships' House last year. I have in my hand a letter from the Association of Municipal Corporations, in which they state that this subject has on several occasions occupied the attention of that association, and that at the last meeting of the council a resolution was passed asking the Government to secure the passing of an Act providing that bookmakers should be liable to more severe penalties.

Now, as to the inadequacy of the present penalties, your Lordships are aware that street betting is now dealt with only under by-laws for the purpose of preventing obstruction in the streets. Difficulty is found in enforcing those by-laws, and the penalties which can be imposed under them are wholly inadequate to meet the evil. As was stated in the evidence given before the Committee, bookmakers laugh at the penalty. One man, it was stated, offered an additional £5 to the poor-box, and, generally, they pay the fine and go on their way rejoicing. Since the Bill was before your Lordships last year several cases have occurred in which magistrates, not only in London, but in Glasgow, Newcastle. Manchester, and other great cities in the Kingdom, have expressed their regret that they could not impose larger penalties for this class of offence. Alderman Sir David Evans, speaking in the city of London, said that betting in the streets attracted clerks and office boys who had charge of petty cash and stamps, and very often their lives were blighted as a consequence of the temptation to which they were subjected. He (Sir David Evans) hoped that the law would be amended, as the present fines were quite insufficient. The present Lord Mayor of London expressed a similar opinion as to the inadequacy of the fines, and went on to say that he had made personal representations to the Home Secretary, but was sorry to receive a reply to the effect that the Government had not time to legislate on the subject this session. I have in my hand extracts from reports of what was said by the chairman of the Salford Bench and others. Indeed, my Lords, it would be almost impossible to take up a newspaper without seeing some remarks of a similar character made by magistrates in some part of the country.

The Bill which I present to your Lordships to-night has been carefully framed so as to make it clear that it applies only to those who ply the trade and business of betting; there is no fear that two men betting with each other in the street will be brought in. The Bill only applies to the fraternity who make a trade and business of this class of betting. The penalties are increased for the first offence to a fine not exceeding £10, and for the second offence to a fine not exceeding£20, and for any subsequent offence, if convicted on indictment, to a fine not exceeding£50 or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months, without the option of a fine; and, if convicted on a summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding£30 or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months without the option of a fine. These are the penalties which were recommended by the Select Committee, and they were first suggested by a very experienced police magistrate who is now deceased—Sir Franklin Lushington. There is a proviso at the end of the first clause dealing with the case of children under the age of sixteen years. It enacts that if a person be convicted under this section of betting with any person under the age of sixteen years, or receiving money from, or paying money to, any such person, or inciting any such person to bet with him, he shall be liable for the first and every subsequent offence to the maximum penalty or imprisonment imposed for the third and subsequent offences. That also is in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee.

Now, my Lords, I have to draw your attention to an addition to betting in the streets, which was also in the Bill of last year. The words are, "in any street, public park, or garden, or any place to which the public have unrestricted access." The following words are now added, "or any house licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors." In other words, betting in a public-house is put on the same footing as betting in the streets. The reason for that is this. Prior to the decision of your Lordships' House in the Kempton Park case there had been numerous convictions, under the Betting House Act, of persons who had been found betting in public-houses; but there was evidence before the Select Committee that since the Kempton Park case it had been found impossible to obtain those convictions. The construction of the Act which was laid down in that case, and which must, of course, be taken in all Courts as the true construction of the Act, was that a person could not be convicted under that Act unless he was in some sense an occupier of the place in which he was betting. Public-house cases were numerous before that decision, but the only public-house case subsequent to it that I am aware of was a case in which a bookmaker had been allowed to occupy a particular chair or seat in the bar by the publican for the purpose of carrying on his trade. The ordinary case of a bookmaker plying his trade in a public-house has not been dealt with. I quite agree that this is a matter for consideration. I agree that it goes beyond what I have called the substance of the Bill, the object of which is to deal with street betting as a nuisance. If your Lordships think that the words "or any house licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors" should not remain in the Bill, I shall be quite ready, if it is read a second time, to consider any Amendment to delete them when the Bill reaches the Committee stage. It is entirely for your Lordships to decide whether the Bill should be extended in that manner or not. It will not touch the substance of the Bill.

The other point to which I ought to call your Lordships' particular attention also arises in consequence of the decision in the Kempton Park case. Clause 2 of the Bill enables proprietors of grounds in which sports are carried on to exhibit at the entrance, or in some conspicuous place within the area, notices that betting is prohibited in the area or some part thereof, and if such notices are given the area is made a public place for the purpose of this Act. Before the Kempton Park decision there were numerous cases in which members of the betting fraternity who had been found betting on ordinary athletic grounds were convicted under the Betting House Act, but the Committee were informed by experienced superintendents of police who were good enough to give evidence before them that since the Kempton Park case it had been found impossible for a policeman to interfere, and the consequence was that the betting fraternity were able to ply their trade and business at pleasure on grounds used for athletic sports. I quite agree that this clause is a double-edged clause. I wish to bª perfectly candid with the House, and I say at once that I think there is a good deal to be said for it and a good deal to be said against it. I think that in principle if you prohibit betting in the streets you ought to go on and treat in the same category any other similar public place; but, on the other hand, one cannot but feel this, that if you enable the proprietor or manager of an athletic ground to prohibit betting in the area, or the greater part of it, he may confine the betting within what is called the ring, and the effect may be to give a monopoly of betting to those within the ring.

This clause, for instance, would, I think, apply to a racecourse unless words were put in exempting racecourses, and the effect in the case of a racecourse would be, if this clause stood, that there would be no betting outside the ring set apart and appropriated for that purpose. That might, I think, be described as legislating differently for those who are comparatively well-to-do and those who are less well-to-do. The clause is open to that objection. On the other hand, there is an advantage, I think, in having betting on athletic grounds and racecourses localised, so as to bring it more under control. This clause was recommended, I think, unanimously by the Select Committee, and it was very largely pressed upon the attention of the Committee by magistrates and superintendents of police; but it does not, in my opinion, go to the substance of this Bill; and again I say that it is entirely a matter for the consideration of your Lordships. If an Amendment is put down for the omission of this clause it will, I am sure, receive fair consideration at your Lordships' hands, and if the Amendment be carried I do not think it will affect what I call the substance of the Bill.

I do not think it necessary to say more. The Bill contains provisions making the person offending under the Act liable to be arrested and searched, there by putting him in the same position as a person offending under the Vagrant Act, 1867, by betting or wagering in the streets by means of an instrument. To make the Bill efficient I think some provision to that effect is necessary. I am encouraged to hope that the Bill will find acceptance at the hands of His Majesty's Government. An answer was given by the Prime Minister to a friend of mine in the other House. Mr. Chaining, which leads me to hope that the Bill may be supported by the Government, subject, of course, to any Amendments which they may think it necessary to suggest. I may add that I should be very glad if the experienced draughtsman who advises the Government can improve the drafting of the Bill so as to make it most efficient for the purposes for which it is intended. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

Moved. "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Davey.)

LORD BELPER

My Lords, I think it would be convenient that I should express the view of His Majesty's Govern-now before the debate proceeds further. The House will have gathered from the remarks which have been made by the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down that his main object in introducing this Bill is to make more stringent regulations with regard to street betting. I may say at once that the Home Office have had a mass of communications with regard to the inefficacy of the present law. As has been pointed out by the Committee of your Lordships' House which sat upon this matter and by the noble and learned Lord to-night, the regulations which can be made under by-law, are not effective because the bookmaker makes such a good thing out of his calling that he is perfectly prepared to pay over and over again the fines which can be imposed under those by-laws. Very great interest has been taken in this question by local authorities, and a large number of them have within the last few years adopted by-laws on the subject, but they have found that those by-laws are not effective. Several of the local authorities have, therefore, obtained powers in local Bills to strengthen the law, and a great number of local authorities have asked for an amendment of the general law, which would provide some such penalties as are placed in the Bill now before the House, for the purpose of putting down this serious nuisance in the public thoroughfares throughout the country. Let me only say, on that point, that I think it will be the general feeling of the House that the time has come when some step should be taken to deal with this evil in a more effective way than it is dealt with at present. It may possibly be found, however, that the wording of the local Acts which have been approved by the Home Secretary and adopted in several places, is more effective and satisfactory than the wording in the noble and learned Lord's Bill. I only mention that as the noble and learned Lord himself referred to the drafting of his Bill in the course of his observation, and I may have to move some substitution with regard to the wording at a later stage.

Although this is called a Street Betting Bill it does go considerably further in two directions, which the noble and learned Lord has himself pointed out. In the first clause licensed houses are placed in the same category with regard to betting as streets and other public-places. I will not follow the noble and learned Lord into the legal argument as to the necessity of further regulations with regard to betting in public-houses, but I should like to point out that the two matters dealt with by the Bill in addition to street betting—I refer to licensed premises and athletic grounds—stand in a very different position from street betting. They are, more or less, private places, and I think it is a matter for consideration whether the same stringent law which is necessary in public places is equally necessary in regard to public-houses and athletic grounds. I should like to make it clear, in giving the assent of His Majesty's Government to the Second Reading, that it is very probable the Government will feel it necessary to move Amendments in Committee which will confine the Bill to its main object—the prevention of street betting.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I should like in a very few words to express the satisfaction with which many Members of your Lordships' House, and notably those who sit on the Episcopal Benches have heard that His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the principle, at all events, which is embodied in the noble and learned Lord's Bill. After the clear and fair-minded speech which the noble and learned Lord made in introducing the Bill, it is not necessary that I, or any Member of your Lordships' House, should reiterate the reasons for which we think a Bill of this kind to be now necessary. About the magnitude of the evil there is, I imagine, no doubt or question. Of course there may be evils in existence, even of considerable magnitude, which we must deal with by other means than legislation. But this is not merely a matter in which the magnitude of the evil is evident; it is an evil the gravity of which is constantly increasing. It is when an evil is seen to be of a definitely increasing kind, and, therefore, to be, apparently, not adequately coped with by the ordinary forces for the improvement and maintenance of a moral standard, that we have a right to come to the Legislature and ask for such help as the Legislature alone can give.

The noble and learned Lord, in introducing the Bill, did not trouble the House with any statistics upon the subject, and I am not going to do so now beyond a single sentence. I find, from the information supplied to me, that the statistics are somewhat important as showing the rapidity with which this evil is increasing. Of course actual convictions for crime, or fraud, or offences of some kind or other directly attributable to betting are very inadequate as measuring the extent and increase of the evil; but still it is noteworthy that while the evidence before the Royal Commission showed that in the five years which preceded the sitting of that Commission—namely, the five years up to May, 1901—there were 320 convictions for embezzlement directly attributable to betting, in the three years that have passed since then there have been no less than 244 such convictions, showing a very rapid increase. It is not, of course, on statistics of that kind that any of us would mainly rely as supporting the statement that the evil is on the increase. The testimony of everyone who has an opportunity of observing the habits of those for whose benefit and protection this legislation is being attempted is universal, whether we take the magistracy, the police, or ordinary observers. Among ordinary observers I should put in the forefront the clergy and ministers of religion, who have special cause for trying to find out what has led to the wrongdoing which they see to be prevalent; and there is absolutely no variation in the testimony given by those who are thus responsible as to the evil being a steadily increasing one.

This Bill, even in its more limited application after it has been amended in the manner foreshadowed by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government, will meet exactly the cases in which, so far as we can judge, the evil is at its worst. Anyone who will watch in the vicinity of news-paper offices when the evening papers are coming out, or at the gateways of great factories and public workshops, for women as well as men, will have abundant means of satisfying himself as to whether or not the evil is great now, and a very little inquiry will show him, if he is not already aware of the fact, that the evil is much greater than it was a few years ago. It is in those circumstances that your Lordships are asked to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and I desire to express my thankfulness at hearing that the Government propose to take the matter up, and endeavour to bring into effect proposals which have so long been under consideration, and which have now been brought before the House in so coherent a form by the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, I was a member of the Betting Committee. I signed the Report, and I am not going to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. But as an instance of the length to which, if this Bill were passed in its present form, things would I be carried, I would direct attention to the words in the first clause— Any place to which the public have unrestricted access. If I am not mistaken, the public has unrestricted access to Epsom Downs and Newmarket Heath, and, unless the words which I have read are omitted, I presume it would be impossible to bet at those places. I merely rise for the purpose of suggesting to the noble and learned Lord that unless the progress of the Bill is to be seriously imperilled these words, at all events, should be omitted.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has just spoken may be reassured as to the extent to which the prohibition provided for in the first clause will be carried, for this reason, that the application, as I understand it, is to professional bookmakers and not to ordinary individuals who wish to bet with one another. I confess there may be some difficulty in defining a professional bookmaker or a betting man, but perhaps some noble Lords who are better versed in practices connected with the turf than I am will enlighten us on that point. I do not think it can be said of this Bill, as it was said of the Bill which the noble and learned Lord introduced last session, that some of its provisions would be unworkable. As we have been already reminded, it is the present law which is unworkable, which is at least ineffective to a large extent in consequence of the inadequacy of the penalties imposed under it. Now that the noble Lord who represents the Home Office has stated that the Government will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, there is, of course, much less reason for argument in support of it than would otherwise have been the case. I am not sure, however, whether we are to infer from what the noble Lord said that the Government will undertake to give facilities for the passage of the Bill when it reaches the House of Commons. The noble Lord shakes his head.

LORD BELPER

I did not make any statement of that kind because I should not have been warranted in doing so.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

I noticed that the noble Lord was careful not to make any such promise, but, nevertheless, I venture to hope that when the Bill passes this House, as evidently it will, the Government will give facilities for its becoming law this session. If I may venture to say so, I think they will find the Bill a good deal more popular than some of the other measures introduced under their auspices. Many of your Lordships will recollect that about twenty years ago a Bill was introduced into this House dealing with some very delicate and difficult questions in regard to the social life of the country. That Bill, after a good deal of discussion, was passed, and I remember some noble friends of mine stating that it was all very well for us to pass it here, but that in the House of Commons it would have a very poor chance. I ventured to predict that it would have as good a reception there as it had met with in this House. What happened? The Bill was, as a matter of fact, strengthened in the House of Commons. There was a very strong public feeling on that question, and I venture to think that in this case also there is a very strong feeling, far more widespread than is imagined, in support of legislation of this character. Therefore, I feel convinced that if the Government do extend their ægis to this Bill in the other House their action will be fully endorsed. I had hoped to see in the House to-night more noble Lords who are known to take an interest in racing matters, and that some of them would have spoken in favour of this Bill. There are outside a numerous class who imagine that if they have a bet they are in some sense sportsmen. Many a young man fancies that he stands some inches higher in the estimation of his friends if he can claim that he has some money on a horse. Those who happen to bet themselves may have scruples in condemning it in others, but the evil is not so great where the practice is indulged in with safety and prudence. I think if noble Lords connected with the turf would speak in support of this Bill, it would have a very good effect in the country. I endorse what has been said by the most rev. Primate as to the growth of this evil, and I rejoice that a Bill has been brought in which will go a long way in checking it. In conclusion, I would aga n express the hope that His Majesty's Government may be willing, when the Bill gets to the House of Commons, to give it not only their assent but their strong support.

On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a,. and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.