HL Deb 27 June 1956 vol 198 cc97-124

2.52 p.m.

VISCOUNT ASTOR rose to move to resolve, That this House welcomes the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a comprehensive Bill dealing with betting. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name. I do not wish to go over the great moral questions concerned with betting which have been previously debated by your Lordships this year, but rather to accept the fact that betting is neither a great economic nor social evil but a widespread relaxation which is going to continue. The amount spent on betting is only one-tenth of the amount spent on tobacco and drink, and so the figures are small from the economic point of view. The present system, however, has been unanimously condemned by the Royal Commission. They say that it is difficult to enforce; that it is out of date; that it is full of class distinctions as between bettors; that it leads to that curious alliance between the lower order of bookmakers and the criminal class, of which we have seen such lamentable examples in the last few days. Moreover, the off-course bookmaker, who deals with 75 per cent. of the betting, makes no contribution whatsoever towards the racing industry.

I hope that in this debate your Lordships may try to give the Government some idea of the principles of a Bill which will be acceptable to your Lordships' House with its very wide knowledge on such a non-Party matter. I venture to suggest the following principles. We want a law which can be easily enforced, a system which can be controlled, a system which will be fair to all classes and will not discriminate against the working class, like the present system does; one which does not tend either to corrupt the police or bring the law into disregard, a system by which all bets made, whether on or off the course, will contribute a small proportion in tax to the Exchequer, and also, by a small levy, help to sustain an honourable, useful and healthy sport. Further, we want a system which does not afford temptation for dishonesty in sport. The New Zealand Royal Commission put the matter well when they said: Horse racing should be run as a sport, for sport's sake, and as an amusement—with moderate gambling as a means for the creation of pleasurable excitement and to further interest. I submit that no-one would want to encourage betting as a way of life or as a means of livelihood. But there are legitimate and popular sports on which betting takes place, and which are diversions—such as dog-racing and football. There are others which are national assets as well. These are horse racing and, to some extent, motor racing. They bring in a substantial sum exports; they raise British prestige, and they bring a great deal of tourist traffic into this country.

I, of course, speak with interest as a breeder and owner of horses, one who is trying to carry on his father's tradition of running a high-class stable without betting. But I think most of us must look with anxiety at the continued failure of British horses in the classics in the last few years. Not a single place in the first three of the Epsom classics this year was taken by an English horse, and when our friendly competitors from France have been winning steadily year after year there is something obviously wrong.

Less obvious is the economic position of racing and breeding. Statistics that have been worked out and published—and they have not been contradicted—show that racing is an industry with a capital of about £20 million, and one that earns us dollar exports of £1½ million every year—and sometimes more. But under the present system it is a deficit industry of the order of £2 million to £3 million for the people participating. Costs have gone up, and prizes are very low in this country compared with stakes. Owners put up 40 per cent. of the stake money themselves. The result of all this is that it is impossible for the ordinary owner, without betting, to make ends meet. That means that he tends to breed horses of the sprinter type and the faster two-year-olds which are good gambling vehicles, rather than follow the classical pattern of breeding horses that will be best as three-year-olds over the classic distance of one and a half miles. This difficulty of making ends meet means that our best stallions get exported, because owners make such a loss on some years that if they do have a good horse they cannot afford not to sell him in the highest market.

The public are getting poor amenities at high costs on the British race courses under the present system. I was at Longchamps on Sunday. It cost me 18s. to go in. At the Irish Derby it would cost 15s., while equivalent accommodation at Epsom would cost £4. What is a vast source of tradition and public entertainment in this country is in a parlous economic condition. We are losing our highest prizes to the foreigner. It is impossible, under present conditions, to breed the best horses. It is no secret how the French have managed to build up their breeding. They have a totalisator monopoly. That monopoly passes a substantial percentage of all bets to the French racing authorities, who make their big prizes for three-year-olds at classical distances, with less emphasis on sprinters and races for two-year-olds. If you race in France you get better stakes to run for, compared with your training costs. All travelling expenses are paid, and the owner has to put up only 6 per cent. of the stakes, compared with 40 per cent. in this country. So it is worth while for the French breeder and owner to breed classic horses and to wait with them to win our classics in this country.

The situation in Ireland is also an example to us. There they have a levy on all course bookmakers, based on a percentage of all bets. The result is that they have free car parks for the public, better stands and free transport for horses, and in the last few years they have doubled the stakes for which owners are competing. In the United States there is also a totalisator monopoly. Racing is legal in only twenty-four States of the Union, not including the largest State of Texas. In the United States, even without Texas, there is a turnover in rough figures, of £650 million a year. The State Governments draw a revenue out of racing of about £50 million, and the totalisator contributes £22 million to the sustenance of prizes for horse racing. The owner in America has to contribute only 1 per cent. of the stake money, against 40 per cent. here.

It needs only a small effort of the imagination to imagine how English racing could be transformed again within two equine generations if we adopted the same system here. Divide £22 million by half, for the difference in population—that is, say, £10½million. Divide that by half again, because the Americans are richer—say £5 million. Then take off a further one or two millions, and that still leaves some £3 million that would be added to the stake money, which could transform and revivify the sport of horse racing in this country. Therefore, from the point of view of racing itself, of its traditions, of breeding, and of high-class racing, I submit that the best thing we could have is a monopoly for the totalisator in this country.

It is a form of betting easy to control. It would mean cleaner racing. The totalisator has no temptations to corrupt jockeys either to give information about what is happening in stables or to ride horses in particular ways. The burdens of the excellent Stewards of the Jockey Club would be lightened immensely by a reduction in the number of cases they have to face at the moment. For those who are not in the least interested in racing, it would be a tremendous contribution to the diminution of lawbreaking and crime in this country. The employees of the Totalisator Board do not engage in gang warfare. They have no temptation to corrupt the police force. The recent lamentable examples of the lower fringe of the racing and betting fraternity are nothing new. If you talk to any chief constable he will tell you that the bookmaker is the main cause of the corruption of his police, and that because of the present system, by which many bookmakers carry on a semi-illegal traffic, they tend to associate with people connected with crime; and that, because a large amount of money passes through their hands, they can afford to finance other forms of crime as well. There are, of course, many fine respectable honest bookmakers in this country. I have had the honour to be chairman of the R.N.V.R. Officers' Association, and at one time I had two practising bookmakers on my Council. They were very good chaps.

But the present system makes a borderline between betting and crime which I am sure the police, and all interested in law and order, would be delighted to see finished once and for all by the establishment of the same totalisator monopoly in this country as has proved successful in our main competitors. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will serious consider this matter. I know that it goes beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but perhaps if all these "Jack Spot" and other troubles had occurred at the time the Commission sat, they might have taken the view that a totalisator monopoly would be a fine thing for sport, and a fine thing for public morale in this country and for the enforcement of law and order.

If, however, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to go so far as this, we hope that they will embody in their Act the main recommendation of the Royal Commission, which is that all bookmakers should be licensed and supervised, that those wishing to become bookmakers should require at least as much recommendation of respectability as those wishing to become publicans. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will use the present Racehorse Betting Control Board as the basis of their new system. It is a Board partly appointed by the Government and partly by different sections of the racing industry, which over the years has proved itself and has the support of all sections of the racing community. It is a fine working organisation and I hope that that Board, perhaps strengthened in its personnel and representation and scope, will be the authority over all betting. I do not think that bookmakers are going to claim that they should license each other to become bookmakers. One cannot compare a bookmaker with a lawyer or doctor, and bookmakers have done little or nothing in the past to try to purge their own ranks. I do not think that public opinion would accept a system of self-licensing by bookmakers. It should be done either by the Betting Control Board or by the local justices.

The next point I would urge, after the use of the Racehorse Betting Control Board as the basis for the control of betting, is that there should be a levy on turnover of all bets made, whether on the totalisator or with "bookies" on or off the course. Bookmakers like to argue that because the turnover tax failed in 1929, it would fail to-day; but I am advised by tax lawyers that, while in those days people's accounts were more or less accepted at face value, to-day professional persons, including bookmakers, have to put in audited accounts. I cannot believe that we cannot do as well as the Irish in controlling people's accounts. A percentage of all bets should go in taxes and a percentage to subsidise sport in the way it does among our competitors, by increasing stakes and improving amenities for the public. In the case of dog racing, I do not think we can expect the dog-racing public to be asked to support the horse-racing industry, but I would suggest that, if there is a levy for encouraging sport in the case of dog racing, that should go to the National Playing Fields Association for the improvement of playing fields in the area.

The next thing is that I hope Her Majesty's Government will grasp the nettle and that we shall have betting offices, as recommended by the Royal Commission; that the Totalisator Board will be allowed to have branch offices, and that cash betting by post will be legal. Then there comes the question of messengers or runners. It is suggested that carrying a bet should not be legal. I think that that is a ridiculous recommendation because, whatever happens, not all the people will go to the betting offices themselves: some will continue to give their bets to the postman or the milkman to take it for them. Nor would it be to the public advantage if everybody left a factory in order to place his own bets in the shops, instead of one person taking everybody else's. I suggest that that would be no more a crime, once betting offices were made legal, than giving a letter to somebody else to post, or taking round the plate in church. Either messengers could be licensed, or it should not be a crime for anyone to take a bet for somebody else. I hope that the Government will give the Totalisator Board a monopoly of the use of "the Tote" odds, which will give them a control over bookmakers who say they give "Tote" odds.

There is a sinister alliance between the Churches, Committee on betting and bookmakers to oppose betting shops. I hope that the Church, as represented in this House, will not allow itself to play the "bookies'" game. The Churches' Committee think that to have betting shops would encourage betting and make it too respectable. The bookmakers seem to prefer the present system, where they act without control, without licence and without taxation—a system which has been absolutely condemned. The betting office is easier to control. In Eire it has completely eliminated the street and factory bookmaker. If your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to read what the Report says on the effect of this in Ireland. It says: By far the most important criticism was that overcrowding, loitering and continuous betting take place. It was with the particular object of testing these allegations that we arranged for the second visit to the Republic, which was made by six of our members, to include the day on which the Derby was run at Epsom and the two preceding days. We had been told that these undesirable features were to be seen particularly on the days of big races in England, but on this occasion, at least, nothing of the kind was to be seen. We very rarely saw more than half a dozen persons in an office, even in the hours immediately preceding the running of the Derby. Most of them spent not more than a minute or two in the office, though some devoted a little time to a study of the sporting pages of the newspapers in order to decide what to back. In a few offices there were persons loitering either in or outside the premises, but this was exceptional. Of continuous betting we saw no sign, and the general conduct of the offices was completely orderly. There were no indications that the bookmaker or the person responsible for the office, who is often a middle-aged or elderly woman, makes any attempt to encourage people to bet or, indeed, takes any particular interest in the betting.

The alternative to the legalised betting office is the street "bookie", illegal, as at present, tending to corrupt the police, indulging in gang warfare. There is all the difference between the bootlegger and the publican; we do not want the bootlegger; we prefer the English system of the respectable publican. That, I suggest, ought to be the basis on which we should proceed for racehorses bookmaking if we keep it. I am not an expert on motor racing, but I understand that that, too, has an importance for export, and the Betting Control Board might well be allowed to give their facilities to motor racecourses, in order that money may be ploughed back for the benefit of motor racing.

I think the matters of the football pools and small lotteries have already been satisfactorily dealt with by legislation and need not be touched further. The recommendations on gaming seem to be full of common sense and, I feel, should meet with approval. I agree with the recommendations on funfairs and the control of these fruit machines (in America they are called "one-armed bandits"), which are devised so that it is impossible for the public ever to win. If they could be completely abolished it would be a great advantage.

The Government will need courage to tackle this problem, and they will need to lead public opinion. But I believe that public opinion has changed more than people think. Public opinion has been horrified by what has happened on the criminal side; public opinion is worried over the state of English racing, when our best horses are being sold abroad and our biggest races are being won by the foreigner. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take a firm line against the propaganda of the bookmaker and the professional backer, and think entirely of the interests of the racing industry, the small bettor, the public and of law and order. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That this House welcomes the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a comprehensive Bill dealing with betting.—(Viscount Astor.)

3.15 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for allowing me to speak ahead of him in this debate. I have to leave the House in a few minutes, and I cannot speak for long. We had a valuable debate in this House in February on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord welcoming the Report of the Royal Commission, and I do not propose to say again the few things that I had to say during the course of that debate. My sole purpose in rising this afternoon is to say how much we on these Benches welcome the intention of the Government to produce, as soon as they can, a comprehensive Statute dealing with the whole complex subject. When speaking in February I expressed the hope that that Statute might be forthcoming, and at the end of my speech I said, "the sooner the better". We are extremely grateful that at last we are to have before long a Statute that will be really comprehensive in its handling of this subject.

I do not propose this afternoon to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in suggesting what should be in that Statute. I am not sure that I should be prepared to back all the horses that he has been riding. But there is great need for the whole subject to be comprehensively treated. It has been the view of those who speak for the Churches—both the Church of England and those Churches represented in the British Council of Churches—that, although we may differ, to some extent, in our attitude to the subject, we are quite convinced that the present situation is full of anomalies. It produces certain evils, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has referred, and therefore it is in the public interest that we should have this comprehensive Bill before Parliament and be able to discuss it freely and fully.

3.18 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, it is not my intention to speak at any great length, and I shall follow the example set by the right reverend Prelate. I, too, am appreciative of Lork Pakenham's willingness for me to intervene for a few minutes before him. I was somewhat surprised when I saw the Motion on the Paper. I do not ever remember before seeing a Motion in these terms, anticipating legislation that may be coming later, and the mover saying that, provided the legislation is along the lines which he puts forward, then he welcomes it. It is a provisional welcome that he gives. If that is how we are to deal with future legislation we shall have Motions put on the Order Paper, and the Mover will be saying: "Provided that the legislation on this matter is agreeable to me, I extend a welcome to it." I welcome any Bill which carries out my wishes, no matter what it deals with. The Motion says that it welcomes the intention … to introduce a comprehensive Bill dealing with betting. I think it is necessary to have a comprehensive Bill, but what I do not understand is how such a Motion appears on the Order Paper. It is a rather novel way of dealing with legislation. But there it is.

My attitude towards betting has been that it has not been a character builder in this country. When I hear references to "an innocent way of enjoying life" and "innocent excitement", it may be all right. But I happen to have been brought up in a colliery district, and I have seen that betting is not the best thing for family life. I agree that it may be all right for those who have spare money and can use it on having what they call "a flutter". But my fears are that betting may become an evil influence in the life of the country. One does not want to exaggerate what the right reverend Prelate has said, but the Established Church and the Nonconformist Churches have expressed their views on betting. The Report has said that it disagrees with those views; that they are over-emphasised and not in accordance with facts. I am inclined to agree with the views put forward by the Nonconformist Churches and the Church of England.

The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has been asked to keep in mind certain things. What I would ask him to keep in mind is that there is a fairly strong body of opinion, as vociferous in Wales as anywhere else, that betting is gaining ground, and that the desire to become wealthy without effort is also gaining ground. That cannot be a good thing. Today we need every able-bodied person to be engaged in industry to enable us to face what is perhaps the biggest economic industrial struggle that we have ever faced. I am not sure whether the 150,000 people employed in this betting business are employed in the best way. That is how I approach the matter. This is an ambiguous Motion: that "I am prepared to welcome the Bill, provided that it is along the right lines." I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will inform us of the lines that it is likely to take, so that we can all determine our attitude. For myself, I reserve my attitude towards this suggestion until I have seen the Bill itself, and then I shall determine whether I can support or oppose it.

3.22 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, in rising to support the Motion of the noble Viscount. I note that he laid considerable emphasis on horse racing—the particular aspect of betting involved in racing on the Turf. He is particularly well qualified to speak on this subject. He comes from a family famous for many years in connection with the Turf and one which has always exercised a strong, beneficial influence on the whole sport, as most of your Lordships are aware. But the word "comprehensive" appears in his Motion, and, therefore, perhaps I may be forgiven if I take up your Lordships' time for a moment or two to touch upon other aspects of betting generally connected with sport, which one hopes that any intended legislation will cover or, in any case, affect.

It is my contention, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has said, that it is impossible to forbid betting. You can discourage it, but I rather doubt whether that will be effective, because it is a natural human impulse to require a little excitement every now and again. I do not believe that everybody who bets, whatever the medium he may choose, does so for the specific purpose of enriching himself. I believe that the great majority of people who bet do so as a change from the humdrum run of their ordinary lives. They like a little excitement and the element of chance, and they choose different media to use. Whether it be those who like to speculate on the Stock Exchange at one end of the scale, or those who like to have 2s. on the Tote at the other end of the scale, it is still the element of chance, and it makes life a little more amusing. I do not believe that any amount of legislation or disapproval will make any difference, and I for one am glad that it should be so. But I feel that if the rules and regulations by which people may legitimately bet could be tidied up and made clear, it would obviously be a good thing, and I think the majority of your Lordships feel the same.

May I, for two or three minutes, run over, for instance, the question of card games? The amount of money which has changed hands over the centuries on the turn of a card far outweighs any sums of money wagered in any other way, and it has never been suggested, I think, that card games should be made illegal—a ludicrous contention, and quite impracticable. In this country there are no casinos. It is impossible to bet publicly on games such as roulette, chemin-de-fer and even a puerile game called boule, to which the French are extremely addicted. Your Lordships may be under the impression that it is only in the resorts in France, such as Monte Carlo, Cannes and the rest, where casinos exist. That is not so. Almost every town of any size has a casino, and there on a Saturday night the citizens repair and take a chance of either expending some of the money they have earned during the week, or perhaps of increasing it. As your Lordships are aware, the French are an extremely hardheaded race where money is concerned, almost to the point of avariciousness. Therefore, if it is part of their life, it is quite obvious that to try to make out a case for preventing gambling in one form or another is a waste of time and breath.

Then there is dog racing, a sport of which I know very little indeed, and therefore I do not propose to say anything at all about it. There are also the football pools which, I am told, are very large employers of labour—I have heard it put as high as I million employees on the pools. It may be contended that that is a bad thing. Football pools are non-producers: the people employed in them do not actually produce any commodity, and up to a point may be looked upon as parasites. There is the opposite school of thought, that if they were not employed in that way they might not be employed at all, which would be infinitely worse There are other forms of betting, front such respectable sports as golf, on which it is now possible to bet in large sums on championships, down to a disreputable sport such as cock-fighting, which is illegal. Cock-fighting, however, still goes on and large sums of money change hands on this revolting sport.

Then there is boxing, and on this I should like to say a word or two, because just as the noble Viscount the mover of the Motion has already pointed out, horse racing leads unfortunately to a certain amount of dishonesty and eventually worse, this, I am afraid, is equally true of professional boxing. A very old friend of mine is the head of the Boxing Board of Control. He tells me that he has the greatest difficulty in trying to keep what was once a great sport even reasonably clean. Professional boxers to-day are "got at" by promotors and others and the results are not what one would like. Your Lordships may remember only a few weeks ago the elevating spectacle of one of our leading Sunday newspapers giving the whole of their middle page to an article by an ex-pugilist—not a very successful one either—who wrote and boasted, in fact, that in a title fight for the world heavyweight championship at the time he went into the ring he owed so much money that he was compelled to back his opponent and to lose the fight in order to pay his debts. But he found out that his opponent was neither as strong nor as fit as he was, and he was in grave danger of winning the fight. He therefore had to resort to losing it on a foul. There you have "great men" speaking of sport, and in my opinion that puts the worse aspects of horse racing in the shade.

To come back to horse racing, may I add just a few comments on that sport? As the noble Viscount has said, there are many honest, hard-working firms of bookmakers in this country, and racing could not possibly go on without them, because people would not go to the races if they could not bet. That is quite certain—they would stay away and racing would collapse in no time. There must be that. But the point is, how can it be controlled? There is a Member of your Lordships' House who is a leading member of a firm of bookmakers which is a most respectable firm. I well remember his kindness to me many years ago when I approached the rails at Newmarket to have a bet on a horse which, in his view, had no chance whatever of winning. When I told him the name of the horse, he became very deaf; he could not hear me. I told him the name again, but still he could not hear me. He said he was sure it was not running; he scanned his race card. He was really advising me to keep my 10s., which I did. I am very grateful to him. There are many such men in. the bookmaking profession but there are others who are very different "fish."

Your Lordships may remember that a few year; ago the Aga Khan wrote a series of excellent and informative articles in The Times in which he forecast exactly what is beginning to happen now. He said that the prizes for which owners can race now, as the noble Viscount mentioned, arc too small and that therefore an owner cannot possibly pay his trainer's bill if he races only for the prizes. They arc not big enough, because the number of people who can hope to win a classic or even a big race such as the Ascot Gold Cup is very small. Therefore, he has to do one of two things: he has to bad his horses or cut down the number of horses he has. He has to bet in order to make both ends meet and, what is more, he has to bet when he has some idea of when his horses will win.

Straightaway, the door is wide open for malpractice. This was most fully written about by, I suppose, one of the greatest living experts in the shape of the Aga Khan. I am afraid that what he said five or six years ago is coming true now. The malpractices include such tings as the switching of horses, as in the Francesca' case which your Lordships may remember, where, luckily, the malefactors were apprehended. It was a surprise to many people to hear that that, sort of thing went on. The point was that those particular people got caught owing to the fact that some of their gang were a little too greedy, opened their mouths too wide, and the whole lot were caught. There were, however, cases when they did not happen to be caught and the public were shaken by that, and rightly so. I have had a little word already with the noble Lord who is to reply and he very kindly informed me that he is in touch with and has sent representatives to Ireland to study the system which obtains there, not only for the control of betting but also for extracting revenue from it, which they do most effectively.

Briefly, their system is this. Off-course bets made with licensed bookmakers—that is to say, in the bookmaking establishments or the "betting shops", as they are called, which are open six days a week, are taxed at 7½ per cent., and that is about to be increased to 10 per cent. The revenue from this last year was £650,000, with a population of only 2½ million. That is quite a lot of money. If you multiply that by seventeen. which is about the difference in proportion between the populations of Ireland and England, it brings the amount up to somewhere about £15 million. Course bets are free of tax, but they pay a levy of 2½ per cent. to the Racing Board which was set up in Ireland in 1945 to coordinate all kinds of activities in connection with racing. They encourage not only blood stock breeding for export for dollars which the Irish have been very able at getting, but also the collection of tax and so on. There is a levy of 2½ per cent. on all bets laid on the course. Finally, there are bets laid on the Tote. Those are also controlled by the Racing Board, but in the last Budget in May the Minister of Finance announced that he was going to put a stamp duty on all bets placed in that way. That, again, will produce a substantial amount of revenue, though the exact figures I cannot give your Lordships—they would probably bore your Lordships in any case.

I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord who is to reply that he has gone into this matter in considerable detail, because it has been described to me by my French racing connections as being a very good system indeed. It is fair and, as the noble Viscount. the mover, has already said, it is discouraging the street-corner bookmaker and putting the trade where it ought to be, where it can be watched and encouraged as a good producer of revenue. If I have gone into rather a lot of detail on these matters I hope your Lordships will forgive me, but before I resume my seat I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, because I quite see his idea in keeping the "pot on the boil", hoping that the Government will take action in the near future.

3.36 p.m.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I shall intervene for a moment or two, not to offer to your Lordships any advice on either horse-breeding or betting, for the excellent reason that, since an ancestor of mine won the Leger in the year after the Great Reform Bill, after running off a "dead heat," no member of my family has ever been able to afford to own a racehorse. But I should like to join issue with my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor (if I may so call him, because so often I agree with him) in expressing not indignation but a certain surprise at and reprobation of my noble friend Lord Astor for introducing this Motion, as being one which is slightly unusual if not out of order —though one cannot be out of order here. I think that this practice is altogether admirable, because there is no time in another place to discuss subjects before Bills are introduced. On the whole, too many Bills are introduced which do not get much consideration before they are introduced, and there is not very much time in which to consider them after they are introduced. Once a Government—I do not care what its complexion is — is committed to a Bill, there it is and, of course, it has to stand by it, or by most of it, or by as much of it as it can force through in another place or cajole through this place.

Here, the process is slightly different. We are less amenable to compulsion than the other place. But what I think is altogether good, particularly in a matter where many views are held, as on this, is that, before the Government have their legislation drafted, and while their minds, if not fluid, are at any rate still relatively open, this House, which certainly on this subject, as on so many others, has a wealth of experience—and not only a wealth of what I may call technical experience, but a wealth of human knowledge arising from its contact with people of all clases—can express a view, and express that view without Party prejudice. I think that that kind of debate is invaluable to any Government when they are considering what they ought to put into a Bill. I am not competent to express an opinion on a number of things that the noble Viscount said, though I must say I found his exposition of why the French breed horses that win was intensely interesting. I think that the course that has been taken in tabling this Motion is an invaluable one and should always, or as often as possible, take place in this House. We all ought to be grateful, and I think the Government should be grateful, to the noble Viscount for his Motion.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

Before the noble Earl sits down, may I say that I quite agree with him that there are occasions when a debate prior to legislation is a very good thing, but I thought that, as we had had a very good debate on the Royal Commission's Report three months ago, that was adequate to meet what was wanted.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

Then, as usual, we are largely in agreement.

3.40 p.m.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, there are reasons in the minds of many of us which make it particularly pleasant to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, this afternoon and to hear them speaking so well. I myself have come into the debate at the last minute in the absence of my noble friend Lord Silkin who speaks with perhaps the greatest expertness on these matters from this side of the House. I do not claim that our Party has yet finalised or publicly declared an attitude to all these matters, and I think the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, that opinion be reserved until the Bill actually appears, is one which is widespread throughout my Party. But, in spite of this—I do not think my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor would disagree—whether or not this Motion was phrased very happily, it is a useful discussion that we are having this afternoon, and certainly I should like to pay my personal tribute to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which was purely a model of its kind—brief, thoroughly well informed and something that people will read, I should think, long after they have forgotten many of our orations.

Of course, the noble Viscount is well qualified to speak on racing, and I presume on betting, although 1 believe that his father, who was so good to many of us and whose memory so many of us hold dear in spite of political and religious differences, never betted. I do not know that the noble Viscount bets heavily. He shakes his head, which 1 presume to mean that he either bets very heavily or does not bet at all.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

Hardly at all.

LORD PAKENHAM

His family of course represents what may be called the Puritan tradition in racing, and. in the absence of my noble friend Lord Alexanand[...]r of Hillsborough I must at least pay my tribute, as he would have wished, to Puritanism in any sphere, but surely most of all in racing, where it is needed if nowhere else I feel that the noble Viscount has performed a real service in his speech, but I agree heartily with my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor that we really must not be asked to come and welcome the intentions of the Government or, by implication, congratulate the Government on something they have not yet done, and which we have no reason to suppose that they will do at all well.

I do riot speak M any spirit of personal ill will towards the Government, least. of all towards the Minister, who is so felicitous in his utterances—no doubt he will think of something nasty to say about me, and no doubt the thoughts are even now passing through his mind, it he has not done any work overnight on them. I have no personal ill will at all. I stand half way between the lyrical fealty of the Daily Express, recently come by but most ardent nowadays, and the undisguised animosity of the Daily Telegraph which it has only recently come by but which seems just as hot blooded. My own attitude towards the Government is one of what I may call charitable scepticism as to their capacity to govern our country. I am sure that any intention of theirs which we are asked to comment upon in advance of achievement is strictly honourable I would surmise it is studiously imprecise, and I would surmise also, on recent form, that it is certain to be altered before they feel able to give effect to it. But no doubt the noble Lord will put me right, or attempt to, on one or two of those things.

My main reason for speaking at all is to indicate the great importance that members of the Labour Party, as all citizens, I think, who take an interest in public opinion, attach to the issues involved in the noble Viscount's Motion. There is also a second reason why something should be said from this side of the House in addition to what was said by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor: I refer to the grave apprehension expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in regard to what appears to be an ever closer connection between certain aspects of the world of betting and the world of violent crime. I think that that must be in the minds of all of us. Some people who have lived long enough in the betting world say that this connection has always existed; but certainly it has been brought home to some of us much more forcefully in recent days.

Thirdly. I personally once had the pleasure of following the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, round a racecourse in the only steeplechase in which I was ever foolish enough to run. I say that I followed him, but in the later stages our paths first diverged and then crossed—indeed, I very nearly unhorsed him as, owing to concussion of the brain. I was by that time riding the course backwards. But I always claim that I was placed, in the sense that I finished the course. There is the point that there were only three survivors, of whom I was one. But the bookmakers, with that parsimoniousness which seems to be part of their character, refused to pay, even supposing that anybody had backed me for a place.

Lord Astor has made out (it is not difficult to make out) as Lord Silkin and other speakers did in a previous debate, an overwhelming case against the existing state of the law. We all agree that the present law is full of hypocrisy; it discriminates unfairly between rich and poor, and it spreads a whole atmosphere of illegality which encourages blackmail, thuggery and, on occasions—I am afraid we must face the fact—corruption of the police. We must all surely refuse to leave the matter where it is. When we come to improve the law, it seems to me that the decisions that we each have to take in our consciences—I do not think this is a political matter; I should be surprised if it were—must be to decide how low we have got to rate betting on horses in the scale of moral values. There may be a few persons who regard it as a positive and laudable enhancement of life. I should imagine that very few such people would have been in the position of my noble friends Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, Lord Hall and Lord Lawson, who have seen the effects of betting amongst those who have little to spare. I should imagine that a great many of us would tend to regard it as an amiable weakness which is capable of causing grave social mischief when carried to excess; and there will be others, such as my noble friend Lord Mathers, who spoke in the debate last time, and it may be my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who would belong to what I may call the third school, and who regard it as inherently wicked in itself.

To put it a little crudely. I think we have to decide between these two things: whether to place betting on the level of drink or on the level of prostitution. I myself see it in these fairly simple terms. For my part I place betting slightly nearer drink than prostitution, but slightly lower than alcoholism, in this sense: that I think this country would be a somewhat worse place without alcohol and a somewhat better place without betting. That does not mean that betting, with human nature as it is, is always wrong. I have a bad memory for phrases and the noble Marquess has a better one. Would the quotation be: And keep a tighter hold of nurse For fear of finding something worse "? There is a phrase of Lecky which applies in a rather more sordid connection: that on one bookmaker are concentrated the passions which might have filled a world with shame. It is certainly possible to say in regard to gambling on horses that one finds what one might call the second-rate expression for a third-rate predisposition, and we can see it sublimating an essential element in our fallen nature. I am quite prepared to see it justified on the ground of human nature as it is.

But to me, at least, a gambler on horses is a philanthropist who selects the bookmaker as the somewhat peculiar object of his charity. I cannot feel any special sympathy for him, but I certainly cannot condemn him by saying that to have a bet at all is to do an evil thing. I join with those who do not approach this problem as they would approach an attempt to restrain prostitution, but rather with those who would approach it as they would tackle the laws affecting drink. Whether or not you put it in exactly that way or in some other way, I certainly join, I think, with the majority of the House who consider that betting on horses has come to stay in a large way and is not so inherently wicked that one must not even seem to recognise it officially.

I therefore support what was expressed in a previous debate by my noble friend Lord Silkin and by at least one right reverend Prelate and has been expressed again to-day. It is the conclusion of the Royal Commission that we must regulate and rationalise betting, and, to my mind, we should go as far as we can in that direction, without casting over it a sort of positive aura of respectability which might lead to encouraging it unduly.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, brought forward a very well-reasoned case for what one might call the nationalisation of betting. I will not make any promise, but if he will agree to nationalising something else I might agree to nationalising betting. I feel that he has made a case which should be considered carefully by all those interested before it is either accepted or rejected. He has argued it so well that one ought to study the matter carefully before rising in one's place and either opposing it or endorsing it wholeheartedly. Speaking with the special knowledge of his family and background, he has put a formidable case.

Assuming that, for various reasons, it is not going to be widely accepted (it would be repugnant, I imagine, to the moral conscience of large numbers of people in this country, belonging to different Parties and different Churches) I think there arises the urgent question of what kind of regulation is to be imposed. I am not going to add anything to what was said by my noble friend Lord Silkin, but I support the principle that regulation is necessary. The Irish system is one which should at any rate be studied. I personally should imagine that it could be followed with great advantage. Of course, as an Irishman, I know that the English are very chary of learning from the Irish; but I think that if there is one field in which the English are ready to learn from the Irish, it is in anything that concerns horses; and I believe that this is close enough to horses for the English, for once, to take a lesson out of the Irish book.I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. will give very close attention—indeed, I believe that he has done so already—to the system operating in Ireland.

I would refer for a moment to a matter touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor: the fact that since we last debated these matters in your Lordships' House there have been these horrible developments in the field of gang warfare and various other disclosures of what is going on in the so-called "underworld". We must all be very much disquieted at the ever closer connection that seems to be established between operations of this kind—which I am afraid, to some extent at least, affect the honour of the police—and the question of the legality of so much of the betting which goes on under the present law. It seems to me to prove to us, in this House and elsewhere, who are dedicated to penal reform, that we must he particularly conscious of the need for still stricter enforcement of the law of the land than is the case at present. Unless I am much mistaken, there is no single factor more responsible for what is going on in the underworld than the present state of the law affecting betting. And I am afraid that, owing to the great temptations offered, there seems to exist within certain sections of the Metropolitan Police a situation that must cause us great anxiety. Be that as it may, the time has come when we must rectify this position if we are to fulfil our obligations as citizens and legislators. If we do nothing now, if the two Houses of Parliament allow things to drift, responsibility will rest on our shoulders if the worst evils of Chicago are reproduced and sustained in the heart of London.

3.54 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORDMANCROFT)

My Lords, Her Majesty'S Government naturally welcome the terms of the Resolution which has been moved in such an interesting and able speech by my noble friend Lord Astor. Indeed, I wish I could give a more practical and fruitful welcome than I find myself in a position to do, because I must tell your Lordships at once that I have not a great deal new to say. I do not, therefore, propose to waste much time in saying it. I do not propose, for instance, to go over again the pros and cons of the ethics of gambling. We discussed them in detail in our debate a few months ago. The position of the Government, I think, has been made clear. In case there should be any misapprehension, let me remind your Lordships what the Government propose. We propose to introduce legislation to deal with betting and gaming on the following general principles.

As regards betting, the Government are satisfied that the best course is to make lawful the establishment of legally licensed betting offices to which members of the public can go openly to place their bets, instead of doing it surreptitiously, in defiance of the law. There will have to be a comprehensive system of control, involving the registration of bookmakers, the legalising of off-course cash betting by post, and the establishment of licensed betting offices. Since I last spoke on this subject I have discovered that the setting up of these betting shops will be a good deal more complicated and extensive than I had originally thought. Again, we shall have sterner penalties against receiving cash bets off the course in any other way than by post or at licensed betting offices. And. of course, there will have to be control in respect of children and young persons.

As to gambling, the law on which is in a state of unparalleled confusion, Her Majesty's Government propose to start again with legislation designed to bring the law into line with present practice and opinion. This will be carried out by legalising those forms of gambling which are at present tolerated and at the same time prohibiting the conduct of commercially organised gambling. Its solution will involve abandoning the traditional emphasis formerly given to the places where gaming occurs—that is, to common gaming houses. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and in particular to his observations about casinos. These, as I think he knows, have been contemplated at one time or another in the Isle of Man and in Brighton. The proposal raised a storm of protest as soon as it was made public. Perhaps the noble Lord will also forgive me if I correct him on one point—his mistake may well have been just a slip of the tongue. If I understood him aright, he said that there are about I million people engaged in the pools industry. I think he must have misread that figure somewhere. The actual figure is somewhere nearer 25,000.

The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Sheffield, impressed on the Government the need for speed. I realise what is in his mind, but, as I said when I last spoke to your Lordships on this subject, it will not be possible to introduce this legislation to-morrow. Having now gone into the matter in more detail I must warn the House that it will not even be possible to introduce this legislation the day after to-morrow. It has proved much more complicated than we thought, and there is also the difficulty of the increasingly crowded legislative programme.

As to the Bill, I think it is clear that it is going to be a long and complicated measure. The difficulties of drafting which we previously suspected have now become more apparent. I must assure the House, however, that my Department have not been idle. We have—as several noble Lords know—discussed and investigated the practice in Ireland. In the international racing world the Irish practice seems to be one of the most favoured, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that in this case, perhaps, we have much to learn from the country of his birth. I assure him that I have not been sitting up at night thinking of harsh things to say about him. If I had been doing so, however, I could not have thought of anything so harsh as the ideas he put into my mind when he told us that he once took part in a steeplechase, fell, sustained concussion, and finished the race riding the wrong way round. That, so far as I can see, explains a lot.

My Lords, we have consulted many outside interests and experts on this matter. The Home Office are in touch with no fewer than twenty different bodies who have some interest in it. Among the people consulted are the National Bookmakers Protection Association and bodies concerned with horse racing and greyhound racing. We have also had discussions with bodies concerned with the provision of games at funfairs and amusement arcades. I know about this committee of horse racing people and bookmakers which has been convened on the initiative of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee. We await their views with interest. There is also a discussion pending with the Committee of the Churches for evidence and action relating to the Royal Commission on Gambling.

All the views of all these informed and interested bodies will be taken into careful account by Her Majesty's Government before a final decision on the detailed contents of the Bill is taken. And, of course, we will also consider the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in his particularly interesting speech, and by other noble Lords this afternoon. I entirely agree with the view of my noble friend Lord Swinton, that there is no particular reason, merely because the Government are cogitating on legislation, why they should not be given a few hints and prods during their cogitations. In the course of these cogitations, there have emerged one or two interesting points which your Lordships may like to Know about.

First, widespread approval has been given to the proposals which the Government have in mind. We have been gratified to find how small has been the opposition towards the announcement of what we have decided to do. There has been general agreement that, human nature being what it is, there always will be gambling. I had some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, particularly knowing, though not, of course, so well as he does, his native country of Wales. However, I accept the view that there always will be gambling; and since it is impossible to ban it, the best thing to dc is to try to do away with the present ungodly jumble and introduce laws which will be fair for rich and poor, which will be understood and enforceable and which will not lead to the corruption of the police.

One matter that has been fully brought out in the debate is the question of bookmakers. I must confess that I had not realised before that many countries do not have bookmakers at all on their courses. This does not seem to matter very much. It does not seem to detract from the glamour, the excitement and the fun of racing; and racing seems to thrive pretty well without it. I myself am not going to suggest the nationalisation of racing. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, threw an interesting fly over the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggesting that he might like to consider the nationalisation of racing—I presume that the noble Lord means— in exchange for he nationalisation of banking.

Some harsh words have been said about bookmakers this afternoon. The public has become a little out of love with bookmakers as a class. This is understandable, but I am not going to launch an attack on bookmaking as a profession. Certainly there are a large number of decent and honourable men in that profession, but there appears to be an increasing number of crooks and thugs; and it is noticeable, as many noble Lords have said, how in recent months, in regrettable affrays in London and other big cities, time after time an arrested man gives his profession as "commission agent" or "turf accountant". The word "bookie" is strictly "non-U". "Turf accountant" is the U version. Black sheep in every family there may be, but we cannot get away from the fact that a large number—too large a number—of bookies appear to be responsible for, or behind, or connected with some form of crime.

The obvious suggestion has been made that opportunity should be taken to divert a portion of the large sums flowing in off-the-course betting channels to the support of horse racing. I would make it clear that I am neither supporting the arguments put forward nor attacking them; I am not supporting the bookmakers or defending them. I merely say that we will consider these proposals and bear these points carefully in mind. We shall not be surprised if we receive further views on the same lines as the suggestions of the noble Viscount from owners of racecourses and breeders of racehorses. The suggestion is novel. It does not appear in the Royal Commission's Report, though I must say at once that the mere fact that it was not in the Report does not rule it out for consideration. However, the Report did lave something to say about the risks of allowing bodies concerned with the promotion of horse racing to acquire too great a financial interest in betting.

Let me remind your Lordships of paragraph 333 of the Report, which was concerned, of course, with the situation in 1951: We do not, however, consider that the financial interest of racehorse managements in betting is, in present circumstances, excessive. It is not insignificant but it is clearly subsidiary to their main source of revenue, viz., admission charges. No suggestion has been made that horserace courses are run with the primary object of making money out of betting, and we do not think that there is any danger of such a situation developing or that any amendment of the law is needed to prevent it. I must point out that these words were in relation to the financial interest of racecourse managements in betting on the course. Obviously, in considering the proposal that horse racing should acquire an interest in betting oil' the course, there is a possible danger which must be carefully weighed. I am not saying that the idea ought to be rejected; we must examine the details with care and make certain that danger is either not present or present only in small degree.

That is all that I have to offer your Lordships this afternoon. In the drafting of this complicated Bill, we will consider carefully the Report and all the suggestions put forward. I have deliberately not supported or attacked any particular suggestions put forward this afternoon. I think it would be wrong, at this stage, before the Bill is introduced, to indicate prematurely which way my mind, or the mind of the Government, is working, because we have so far to go before the Bill takes final form. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will think it an adequate answer when I say that his suggestions will be carefully considered. I wish that I had more to tell him this afternoon, but I think he will fully appreciate the situation. I wish I had more to say; I wish I could tell your Lordships that the noble Viscount's horse had come in first in the Berkshire Stakes at Newbury this afternoon; but, alas! it did not run. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am sure that the House will wish to express their approval of the course which the Government are proposing and which I am sure is the right one.

4.6 p.m.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, very much for his answer. I remember very well the race which I rode against the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. Thinking that everybody else had fallen, I was going round the course a second time when I met the noble Lord coming straight at the same fence. He had concussion. It was always said by his critics that he started that race as the Secretary of the Conservative Party at Oxford and a Protestant and finished completely different, and that he has been the wrong way round ever since. I would say only one thing on the question of the moral value of our proposal. If we have at the moment a Totalisator Board, not nationalised, but a semi-independent body, and bookmakers, I cannot see that there is any worsening in moral value in giving the Totalisator Board, which is a more disinterested and public-spirited body, a monopoly against the bookmaker, who is out entirely for his own interests and somewhat of a parasite on the community. I hope that those who hold the views of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, will consider that point. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and hope that, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, he will consider that the system in France is perhaps an even greater success than the Irish system, with which ours has been compared.

On Question, Resolution agreed to.

House adjourned at eight minutes past four o'clock.