Lords Sitting of 6 May 1958

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  SEAHAM HARBOUR DOCK BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.
  WALTHAM HOLY CROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.

  CAR PARKING AT GATWICK AIRPORT STATION
  2.37 p.m.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what space is to be provided as a car park for railway travellers from the new Gatwick Airport station.]
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I am happy to be able to inform the noble Lord that there will be a car park at the airport, adjacent to the railway station forecourt, and that it will hold forty-nine cars.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he would tell us whether it is considered that parking meters should be installed as well?
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I should doubt very much whether parking meters will be installed at this particular car park.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Will Her Majesty's Government ask the Transport Commission to ask British Railways to "plan big" in this matter, because the official railway parking space has already proved totally inadequate at the neighbouring junctions at Horsham, Hayward's Heath, Holley and Three Bridges; and parking space for forty-nine cars will in due course prove inadequate at Gatwick Airport.
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I will certainly bring that point to the attention of my right honourable friend, but I would mention that the airport car park proper holds 300 cars; so probably if there should be inconvenience, the press of people could park in the airport park. The car park in the station forecourt is, in fact, the property of the Ministry of Transport at present.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would the noble Earl please repeat his answer to noble Lords on this side of the House?
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg the pardon of noble Lords on the other side. There is an airport car park, the property of the Ministry of Transport, in the airport proper, on the other side of the Brighton Road, and this airport car park holds 300 cars.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, many people will hear with great satisfaction my noble friend's reply, that there is a possibility that car parking space reserved for the airport will also be available for travellers from the railway station.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, that being so, may I ask the noble Earl whether he does not think that it would be as well to go in for parking discs instead of parking meters?

  THE PRESENT ELECTORAL SYSTEM
  2.38 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows>:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what their intentions are in regard to a revision of the present electoral system under which a political Party advocating policies which have been rejected by a majority of the electorate at a General Election can come into power as the Government of the country, and under which minority Parties can be and are inequitably under-represented in the elected Chamber of Parliament.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no statement to make on the subject of the revision of the present electoral system.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for answering my Question. But as the Answer itself, though it came up to my expectations, did not quite reach my hopes, may I ask him two small supplementary questions? Apart from any questions of expediency or timing, does the noble Earl accept or reject the premises upon which my Question is based? Secondly, would the noble Earl dissociate himself or his Party from the opinion expressed by Sir Winston Churchill, as reported in Hansard of March 7, 1950, in these few words, if the House will allow me to quote them [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 472, col. 143]:
  "…we must not be blind to the anomaly…Nor can we… overlook the constitutional Injustice done to 2.600.000 voters who voting upon a strong tradition have been able to return only nine Members to Parliament…we
  4
  should set up a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of electoral reform."
  I would ask the noble Earl whether he intends to ignore that anomaly and constitutional injustice, both of which are greater now than when that opinion was expressed.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should be better able to answer the question about whether I agree with the noble Lord's premises if I knew what the Liberal policy was. Perhaps I may be excused for not knowing their policy on this subject or, indeed, on any other. The noble Lord asks whether I dissociate myself from words used by Sir Winston Churchill. I would certainly follow Sir Winston this far, at any rate, and say "we must not be blind to an anomaly."
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the Liberal Party is quite prepared to accept the policy which was laid down and approved by the Speaker's Conference in 1917? That policy was again approved by the Speaker's Conference in 1930, and it was supported by Liberals and Conservatives. Is it not time that the Conservatives should display the same enthusiasm which they displayed on that occasion?
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that that policy was not supported by the last Speaker's Conference on the subject?
  EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, has the noble Earl observed across the Channel the disadvantages of a number of small Parties with no decided principles.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that noble Lords have noted that. Our present electoral system does not produce a mathematically perfect result, but it does work and it does ensure that the Parliamentary Party in power, forming the Government of the Day, broadly represents the main trend of public opinion. No doubt the question of an alternative vote, or some variety of proportional vote, will be argued for many years to come. If the noble Lord wishes to put this matter into his Party's Election programme, no doubt he will do so, and I should not wish to deprive him of that little bit of policy.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Earl's

  5
  reply that the Government consider that the present vicious see-saw, Tory—Socialist, Socialist—Tory, should go on for ever, to match the vicious spiral of prices and wages?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Viscount will know that one of the elementary rules of a see-saw is that if two people get on to one end they can deprive the other side of the power to move the see-saw.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  2.45 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of Thursday next for the purpose of giving precedence that day to the First Offenders Bill and the Land Powers (Defence) Bill over the Maintenance, Orders Bill.—(The Earl of Home.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  HORSE BREEDING BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee on recommitment of the Bill (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
  DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL PERFORMERS' PROTECTION BILL
  House in Committee on recommitment of the Bill (according to Order): the Amendment made by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills agreed to.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
  2.47 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, this Bill makes certain amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949. That Act is a consolidating measure which incorporates the provisions of the original Redistribution Act, 1944, as amended by a later Act of 1947, and takes account of the changes made by
  6
  the Redistribution Act, 1948, in the number of constituencies. There is, I think, general agreement on the basic principles of the Act, and the Bill does not affect them. It merely proposes certain changes which experience of the working of the present law has shown to be needed. The Government naturally thought it right in a matter of this constitutional importance to discuss the proposals they had in mind with the Leaders of the other Parties before the Bill was introduced; and following these discussions and a full debate in another place the Bill now before your Lordships may, I think, be regarded as an agreed measure.
  Clause 1 makes two changes in the constitution of the Boundary Commissions. First, the Deputy Chairman of each Commission will in future be a Judge. This follows the present practice in Scotland. Secondly, the Registrars-General, the Director of Ordnance Survey and the Commissioner of Valuation for Northern Ireland who are at present members ex officio of the respective Commissions will become assessors, and will cease to be members. The result of these amendments is that each Commission will consist of the Speaker of the House of Commons as Chairman, a High Court Judge as Deputy Chairman and two members appointed by the appropriate Ministers. In the case of the Commissions for England and Wales these will be one member appointed by the Home Secretary and one member appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government; in the case of Scotland two members appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland; and in the case of Northern Ireland, two members appointed by the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated in another place that it was the Government's intention that these Ministerial appointments should in each case be made in agreement with the other political Parties, subject only to the proviso that the Minister of Housing and Local Government would continue to appoint persons with a knowledge of local government.
  Clause 2 (1) extends the intervals between general reviews of constituencies. The present intervals are of three years minimum and seven maximum, but experience has shown that these intervals are too short, when one has regard to the upsets which redistribution is bound

  7
  to cause in many cases; and the Boundary Commission for England themselves suggested in their report on their last general review that the intervals should be lengthened. It is proposed that the intervals should be of ten years minimum and fifteen years maximum. They will begin from the date of the last reports of the Commissions, which were presented in 1954, so the Commissions' next reports cannot be presented before November, 1964, and need not be presented before November, 1969.
  The Commissions need at least a year, more probably eighteen months, for the general review leading up to a report, so that the next general review would probably not start earlier than some time in 1963, or later than some time in 1968. At the same time, it must be remembered that the Commissions have power under Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act to make recommendations affecting individual constituencies between general reviews, and it would therefore be open to them, if they thought fit, to recommend an interim alteration of a constituency whose electorate had become wholly disproportionate during the interval between general reviews. It was, however, recognised in the debates in another place that a difficulty can arise, because a major alteration can hardly be made to one constituency in isolation. It is almost bound to affect adjoining constituencies, with the risk of setting up a sort of chain reaction.
  Clause 2 (2) introduces more flexibility into the redistribution rules. Section 2 (1) of the 1949 Act has the effect of requiring the Commission to aim at giving full effect to the redistribution rules in the Second Schedule to the Act on the occasion of each general review. This means, among other things, that they are obliged in many cases to recommend changes which would produce greater mathematical equality between constituencies, even though the electorates of the constituencies concerned are not abnormal. This gave rise on the last occasion to a good deal of upset and resentment in a number of constituencies, and the Boundary Commission for England suggested in their report that some relaxation of the rules might well be considered. The Bill accordingly relieves the Commission of the obligation to give full effect in all circumstances
  8
  to the redistribution rules, and requires them to take account of the inconvenience and breaking of local ties which may occur when constituencies are changed. The general effect is to bring in a presumption against making changes unless there is a good case for doing so.
  Clause 3 provides for a separate electoral quota for each part of Great Britain, there being one already for Northern Ireland. The electoral quota means at present the average electorate of all constituencies in Great Britain, but the Great Britain average is not appropriate to the differing circumstances of England, Scotland and Wales. Nor is it consistent with the fixed allocation of seats to Scotland and Wales, and consequently of that to England, contained in Rule 1 of the redistribution rules. I can, however, assure your Lordships that the alteration in the definition of electoral quota will not entitle Scotland or Wales to any more seats, or England to any fewer seats than these countries are entitled to at present under Rule 1.
  Clause 4 refers to the publication of notices and the holding of local inquiries. Subsection (1) provides that where a Commission revises a proposed recommendation after publishing local notice of it, it must publish a notice of the revised recommendation. The clause also obliges the Commission to hold a local inquiry if, on notice of a recommendation being published, any objection to that recommendation is made by a local authority or at least 100 objectors in the constituency affected. This applies both to an original recommendation and, in general, to a revised recommendation; but where a Commission has already held an inquiry into its original recommendation, it need not hold a further inquiry into a revised recommendation if, after considering all the circumstances, it is of the opinion that a further local inquiry would not be justified.
  Clause 5 merely removes an ambiguity in the present Act by making it clear that the County Borough of Newport is to be treated, as it has been in practice, as part of Wales for the purposes of that Act. As I indicated in opening, this Bill represents a very carefully considered endeavour to improve the present law about the redistribution of Parliamentary seats in the light of experience of its working, and its contents were agreed in another

  9
  place. I am therefore glad to commend the Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading, and I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Chesham.)
  2.57 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the clear and concise way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He is right in saying that it is in principle, and I think to a large extent in detail, an agreed measure. But we shall exercise our duties as another Chamber and go through the Bill at the appropriate time, and if we have any comments to make we will, of course, make them.
  There is one point I should like to make at this stage, and it rather concerns the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. In Clause 1 it is proposed that, in the case of the Commission for England and of the Commission for Wales, there should be appointed a Judge of the High Court to act as Deputy Chairman. I imagine that the functions of these Commissions will be fairly continuous. They have to give, I believe, something like three or four years' notice, and therefore they will require a great deal of time. I wonder whether it is wise to use High Court Judges for this purpose. There seems to be a growing practice of using High Court Judges for all sorts of purposes other than the real purpose for which they were appointed. I am not being critical, but I mention it in the hope that it might be useful if one came back to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I think the noble and learned Viscount might have notice that I propose to ask him whether it really is a wise purpose and the best use we can make of our Judiciary. They are now highly paid, and they have important functions in their own jobs. This is really outside their job, and I wondered whether there were not other persons, equally eminent and equally suitable, who could be appointed as Deputy Chairmen of these Commissions. Subject to that, and subject to a further examination at a later stage, we have no comments to make on this Bill.
  3.0 p.m.
  LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, as I was twice deprived of my seat in the House of Commons by redistribution, I
  10
  have taken more interest in this subject perhaps than most. I welcome this Bill very much indeed. I think it will improve things in the future, and it will take care of such cases as, for example, occurred in the Borough of Blackburn, where a third of that borough was chopped off by redistribution and put into a county district, thus causing great distress and inconvenience. I think the added flexibility given by this measure is very welcome, and also the increase in the period of time before which changes can be made. I therefore commend this Bill very much to the House.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and to the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe for what they have said. I am sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will pay due regard to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made.
  On Question. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  3.2 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. This Bill, as your Lordships will remember, facilitates schemes for the improvement of drainage of agricultural land in Scotland, particularly where the participation of several owners is required, and ensures that after improvement schemes have been completed they will be adequately maintained. I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  THE LAW ON GAMBLING
  3.3 p.m.
  LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: (1) what was the cost to public funds of the recent unsuccessful case brought against Lady Osborne and Mr. John Aspinall; (2) what changes, if any, are contemplated in regard to the law respecting gambling. The noble Lord said: My Lords, regarding the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, and which I beg your Lordships' leave to ask, I should like first of all to refer to the Motion introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin in February, 1956, in which he welcomed the Report of the Royal Commission on Gambling. I shall make no comment on the debate which ensued on that Motion, as I was not in your Lordships' House that day, but I should like to refer a little more fully to the debate which took place on June 27, 1956—that is to say, four months later—on a Motion put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and particularly to the statement of the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, when he replied for the Government on that occasion.
  The noble Viscount's Motion dealt mainly with the question of betting, and particularly with betting on horse racing. But in replying to the debate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, dealt with the matter fairly comprehensively and stated as follows [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 198, col. 119]:
  " 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."
  I shall not take up your Lordships' time with what the noble Lord said about betting, but as regards gambling he said:
  " 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."
  Then, later, the noble Lord said this (col. 121):
  "I accept the view that there always will be gambling; and since it is impossible to ban it, the best thing to do 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 …"
  In my contention, the Aspinall case, which your Lordships will have read at length in the Press recently, is a regrettable illustration of the results of the Government's failure to implement this undertaking of two years ago. The authorities—let us say the Public Prosecutor and the police—have been made to look foolish, and the law has been brought into a measure of disrepute, to say nothing of the expense to public funds. That expense may not have been great; I shall hear, no doubt, in a minute what it was. But hether it was a lot of money or not a lot of money, I think the principle is really the same. Mr. Aspinall himself, the successful defendant in the case—and, for all one knows, others—having obtained favour-able judgment, can continue unmolested
  in his activities, though possibly the attention of the Revenue authorities will have been drawn to them, so that, as a result, the gilt may have been taken somewhat off the gingerbread.
  It seems to me, my Lords, that it is just as important to regularise gambling, and if possible to extract revenue from it, as it is in the case of horse racing or dog racing. The present law on the subject which the noble Lord said was "in a state of unparalleled confusion," is full of loopholes and too easy to circumvent. I hope the Government have this matter much in mind, and that whoever replies for the Government will be able to give some assurance to your Lordships that it is being treated as a matter or urgency.
  3.8 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I think that most of us have been extremely disappointed that Her Majesty's Government have so far done nothing to follow up the explicit pledges which they gave in this House and in another place to introduce a Bill dealing with the matters covered by the Royal Commission on Betting and Gambling. What was remarkable, reading the accounts of the debates, both in another place and here, was the non-Party unanimity revealed on the need to reform the present laws and on the broad lines on which one should go ahead. The Opposition, the Liberal Party and the Episcopal Bench, were all in favour; the Motion in my name was passed unanimously, and a similar Motion in another place was passed with equal unanimity. The

  13
  present laws are unenforceable. They lead to the corruption of the police and to the evasion of the law in the most wholesale way, and they are unfair between the classes.
  That is the broad reason why we must reform the law on betting and gambling. But there are equal reasons why we must use the occasion of this change in the law to improve the situation of the racing industry, a point on which there is the widest agreement between the Jockey Club, the National Hunt Committee, the trainers, the owners and the breeders. There is unanimity that, if something is not done, the state of British horse breeding and racing will be very parlous indeed. Figures have been proved to show that at the moment the industry is losing something between £2 million and £3 million a year. Our best horses are being exported. Foreigners are coming over and winning our races, and we have not been able to win a single French race of any importance since the war. British programmes become distorted with races which encourage betting, the handicaps and events for two-year-olds, and the more legitimate tests of value are passing away.
  The Stewards of the Jockey Club, in whom the racing world has the greatest confidence, have now asked Her Majesty's Government to accept the principle that all bets made, whether on or off the course, should contribute to the industry. At the moment three-quarters of the bets are made with off-the-course bookmakers, who contribute nothing regularly to the support of racing. I know that there is talk of a voluntary levy on these off-the-course bookmakers, and that occasionally a bookmaker gives a certain sum of money to a particular race to be associated with his name. I am not a horse that looks a gift bookmaker in the mouth, and we are very glad indeed to have some money to run for (I speak as an owner who nearly won the Ebor Handicap last year), but it is surely a wrong principle, because it will never be possible to enforce a voluntary levy on all the bookmakers. If a particular bookmaker does not want to contribute there is nothing the racing authorities can do to make 'him contribute.
  This puts the bookmakers in an immensely strong position to influence racing, because if they were to withdraw
  14
  their contribution it would be a major blow. The bookmakers' influence will always be to have the big betting races—the handicaps, which try to find out not which are the best horses, but which horse, which trainer and which owner has been able to beat the handicapper —instead of the more old-fashioned conditions of "weight-for-age" races. Therefore, I say that we cannot rely on a voluntary levy, though we welcome it as an interim step and are grateful to those bookmakers who are helping. But in the end the welfare of British racing must depend on the receipt of a small contribution from all bets which are made. I withdraw nothing of what I said in my belief that the best thing is a "tote" monopoly. It supports racing in those countries where racing is most flourishing. It means that there is no possibility of corruption. The "tote" executive can never want to bribe a policeman or suborn a jockey. But let us accept the fact that that idea is not practical politics in this country at the moment; and therefore I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that if they are not going ahead with a "tote" monopoly they should consider a broad scheme for the regulation of bookmakers and betting.
  I suggest that there should be (I put forward this scheme as a cockshy for improvement because it is time that something concrete was put forward) a Betting Control Board to control and legalise all bets, whether on or off the racecourse, whether with totalisator or bookmakers. This Board should be on the lines of the present Racecourse Betting Control Board—that is, the Tote Board —but with the addition of a representative of the bookmakers' organisation, because it is wholly wrong that there should be taxation without representation. I think the bookmakers should be represented, with, similarly, representation by the Greyhound Racing Association and. further, representation of the Home Secretary.
  This Board should have the power to license all bookmakers. There should first be a central licensing committee to license bookmakers who operate on a national scale, the committee having a chairman with legal qualifications appointed by the Home Secretary and two men from the racing world. There should also be local sub-committees, covering fairly large areas, to license bookmakers

  15
  who operate exclusively within those areas. I would suggest that in each of these sub-committees the chairman should be appointed by the Betting Control Board, one member by the local authority and one member by the justices of the peace. I suggest that it should be the duty of this national board and these local boards to issue annual licences to bookmakers, and to license betting offices. When they hear applications for a licence they should also have before them representations from the police, from the local authority and from representative local organisations. I suggest that a bookmaker should be required to have the same sort of status as a publican has: he should have to produce a certificate of good character, a certificate of his financial status and a list of his proposed employees. These are the things that have to be shown by a person who is going to run a public-house.
  I would suggest that an applicant should be allowed to be represented by solicitors, by counsel, or by a representative of the bookmakers' organisations, and that for the renewal of his licence in future years he should have to produce only an up-to-date list of his employees. But to make sure there was no unfairness, I suggest that there should be an appeal board, with a chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor, two members representing the Betting Control Board, one representing the local authorities' association and one the Home Secretary. Either a bookmaker or an applicant for a bookmaker's licence, or the local chief constable, should be able to appeal to this Board against a decision made. That, I think, would clear out the corrupt element that there may be, and would make sure that a person who has the privilege of making a book is a respectable citizen.
  In the second place, I suggest that the Betting Control Board should have full authority over betting offices or betting shops, and I suggest that we should follow the example of the Republic of Eire: first, that there should be no external advertisements on a betting shop; secondly, that it should be open only for limited hours; that loitering in it should be an offence; that there should be no facilities for continuous betting, such as chairs, newspapers, approximate odds, results, television or broadcasting sets;
  16
  and that it should be legal to bet with a licensed betting office by cash or credit, telegraph, letter or personal visit.
  Then there comes the question of the messenger or runner. There will always be people taking other people's bets to a bookmaker, and it is, of course, a great saving of manpower. The milkman or the postman will always do his friends a favour. Surely, from the point of view of production, it is far better that one person should collect the slips from a factory than that every single person in that factory should make his visit to the bookmaker. Therefore I suggest that it should be perfectly legal to take somebody else's bets to a betting shop, but that anyone doing it for payment should have to obtain a messenger's licence. I suggest that shops and individuals could also act as transmitting agents for bets for the totalisators; that bookmakers should keep their books in a form laid down and approved by the Betting Control Board and that those books should be open to inspection by inspectors and chartered accountants.
  On the financial side, I suggest that a small levy, equivalent to the levy made on bets made on the totalisator to-day, should be imposed on all bets made; that there should be no discrimination between bets on horses and bets on greyhounds—a matter which was raised in no small measure in another place. In the case of bets on races, this levy should be divided, half to go to the Exchequer and half to a racing fund which should be able to assist the racing industry by providing increased stakes, greater facilities for the public, more stands, free car parks and lower entrance charges and the support of horse breeding and veterinary colleges. In the case of greyhound racing, half should go to the Treasury and —because the breeding of dogs does not require assistance—half should go to the support of playing fields and similar charities.
  I come now to the question of the totalisator. I suggest that the Betting Control Board should appoint a Totalisator Executive, under and responsible to the Board which would take over the present activities of the totalisator and totalisator investors and also the totalisators on all dog-racing tracks. It should be able to have branch offices in the country, exactly like a betting office,

  17
  for the reception of bets for cash or on credit, and should be able to receive bets by post. The Executive should also be able to enter into contracts for the collection and forwarding of bets either from bookmakers' shops or from private individuals; and it should have a copyright of totalisator odds.
  The other point is that Her Majesty's Government must get over their bad case of schizophrenia. The Racecourse Betting Control Board was set up to help the racing industry. Since then the Inland Revenue have been doing all they can to frustrate that purpose and to take away from the Racecourse Betting Control Board money which those who promoted the Board certainly hoped and intended would go to the support of racing. These difficult points must be cleared up in the Bill, so that racing will receive the money which Parliament intends.
  That is a brief sketch of the scheme for which, though I have discussed it with many bodies and individuals, including bookmakers, I am solely responsible. It is entirely my own. There is to be in another place a Bill brought forward by a Socialist Member, Mr. Wigg, which I hope will be passed. It will certainly improve the present position in dealing with a very limited side of this problem. But I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will show courage. They must not be put off by those who say, "This is going to divide the country." I firmly believe that the responsible elements of all three Parties are in favour of sensible reform, and neither the extreme Right wing, as one might say, of the present unlevied bookmakers nor the extreme Left wing of the Nonconformist conscience should count with the broad measure of opinion that exists.
  I beseech Her Majesty's Government also not to be put off by special pleading that racing has never been more flourishing or that there are to-day more horses in training than ever before. As the Stewards of the Jockey Club very properly pointed out last year, there is a real crisis in racing. We may have a lot of horses in training but they are the wrong kind of horses—horses which will not help British prestige or contribute to the substantial sum which is won by exports of bloodstock. So I
  18
  hope that Her Majesty's Government will give us now a firm assurance that they are going to do something in the next Session. I can assure there that they will have the support of the whole of the racing industry and the good will of all sides.
  3.25 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I intervene for only a moment. I am certainly not going to follow my noble friend Lord Astor into his interesting and detailed plan, and I did not appreciate that, on the rather limited Question on the Order Paper, his elaborate scheme was to be produced; but I think it is a very good thing that it has been produced. I have no doubt at all that racing in this country is not only a national pastime but a national interest. This is one of the few countries in the world where, by an illogical Jockey Club —quite as illogical as the constitution of this House—racing is kept clean; but we are losing. It is not only a sporting but a national interest that the best horses should be bred in this country and should stay and go on breeding in this country—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, that is not going to happen unless this extraordinary betting law is reformed. I am going to make a suggestion. My mind goes back to Cabinets of over forty years ago where, over and over again, there came up the question of whether betting laws could be reformed. We were always afraid of an odd thing called the "Nonconformist conscience". As a matter of fact, everybody knew that every Nonconformist had a bet on the Grand National and the Derby; and when we had the courage to tackle it (though I do not think we tackled it in the right way) not a dog barked.
  I have this practical suggestion to make. I do not know whether the detailed plan suggested by my noble friend Lord Astor is right or wrong, but I am quite sure that something should be done, and done quickly. We have this Report. I do not believe that there is any Party capital to be obtained from opposing this matter—even for the Liberal Party, who used to try and "cash in" on it, though not very successfully. After all, one of the better of the Liberal Prime

  19
  Ministers did win the Derby—and I never thought that was greatly to his discredit. But even if a few of his Nonconformist supporters in the 'nineties of the last century were against that, believe me I know something of the Nonconformists—I have a great many Nonconformist tenants—and there is none of that to-day.
  If leaders of the Parties cannot get together on matters like defence, is this not a practical issue upon which the Leaders of the three Parties (because let us have the Nonconformist conscience in, too) could get together and produce something —I hope a highest common factor of agreement; even if it were the lowest common denominator it would not be too bad—which would get us somewhere and get on with the problem? That is the constructive suggestion that I have to throw forward. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, from time to time is lucky in his ventures. I know that he is a great owner of pigs and I hope he will follow the example of Sir Winston Churchill and move from pigs to racehorses. I really feel that the Leaders of the Parties might get together on this matter.
  I believe that the gambling law is in a very bad tangle and has to be simplified. I hope it may be simplified so that he who runs may read. But when that is done there are, I believe, two things which somebody should say in this House to-day. First, the police have an extraordinarily difficult job to do. Here and there we may get an odd policeman who is corrupt, but I should like the police to feel that we in this House appreciate how extraordinarily well they do their very difficult job—whether it is in relation to betting or gambling. The other thing I wish to say is this: if the law on gambling is simplified, as I hope it may be, I trust that it will be made clear that what is legal is legal and what is illegal is illegal. Just as it is bad that there should be loopholes, or that somebody should be "had up" for running a whist drive in a church bazaar, so I would hope that, if we wish (as I hope we do) to have it illegal for private persons under camouflage to keep gaming houses, it will be made perfectly clear that gaming houses which are public gaming houses or private gaming houses are illegal. I quite agree that the law should be simplified and everybody should know what
  20
  the law is, but then I hope the law will be most strictly enforced.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl is not suggesting that the Liberal Party is in any way averse to a reconsideration and improvement of the gambling laws. Dating from the Non-conformist times, of which he spoke, when the idea was probably to abolish them all, I think we have probably become more humanised; but in no sense are we against a reformation in these laws. It struck me that possibly the speech of the noble Viscount and the noble Earl were a little off the Question on the Order Paper; but I should like at least to make that point clear.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, when I originally began to contemplate the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, it seemed to me to state fairly clearly what he had in mind. I must confess I had not anticipated that we should go off on this most interesting and detailed and thoughtful discourse on the ills of the turf as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, sees them. He will forgive me, I know, if I say that I am perfectly sure that what he says makes a lot of good sense; but I could only find—and that by reason of the fact that the noble Lord's Question contains the words: "changes…in regard to the law respecting gambling"—the most tenuous connection between what he said and the Question on the Order Paper. I am quite sure that as and when the time comes for such matters to be considered the noble Viscount's views will be most valuable and helpful.
  But to turn to the Question. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, stressed the fact that he thought the police had been made to look silly. That must be, I suppose, a matter of opinion. But we must remember at least this aspect: that although, after legal submissions had been made to the court, the Deputy Chairman of London Sessions concluded that there was no case to answer, because no evidence was being offered of habitual use of the particular premises with which 'he case dealt, and on that account he directed the jury to acquit, he dismissed the defendants' application for costs with the comment: "I think it was a case that had properly to be investigated."
  The prosecution was brought by the Metropolitan Police and the total cost to

  21
  public funds was £157. The decision to institute the proceedings was a matter for the police and was not, therefore, anything which conies within the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in his capacity as police authority for the Metropolitan Police. I think that the remark of the Deputy Chairman can reasonably be taken as an indication that no criticism can properly be directed against the police for instituting these proceedings, even though the result was an acquittal.
  The question of the law relating to gaming and other forms of gambling has caused anxious consideration to Her Majesty's Government, as I think your Lordships know, for some little while. It is accepted on all sides that the present law on gaming is out of date, confusing and unsatisfactory, and that point has been further stressed to-day by the noble Lord who asked the Question and by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. They have, I think, quite fully drawn attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Betting and have referred to the full debate which took place some two years ago. I had been under the impression that during that debate my noble friend Lord Mancroft said, in general terms, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that they agreed generally with the object of the Commission's proposals as to gaming, which was to legalise those forms of gaming which are in practice tolerated, despite their illegality, while continuing to prohibit the conduct of commercially organised gaming. That is what I thought he had stated the position to be, and that I can only say is what remains the Government's position to-day.
  22
  I regret that I cannot give any undertaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that legislation will be introduced at any particular time to give effect to these recommendations and the other recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Home Secretary has stated in another place that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce any legislation on gambling in the present Session of Parliament. What prospects future Sessions may hold is something which your Lordships would not expect me to be able to foresee. We should, I think, bear in mind that while nobody will dispute the social importance of the subject of gambling, it is one which gives rise to a good deal of difficulty and a great deal of controversy. Fortunately, there is no evidence that the activities of the kind in which Mr. Aspinall is purported to indulge are widespread; but I can assure your Lordships that the facts of the case have been brought to the attention of my right honourable friend, and he will keep them in mind in considering what action should be taken by the Government in future Sessions.
  LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his most full, thoughtful and sympathetic reply.

  FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
  Presented (pursuant to leave given this day) and read la.
  House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before four o'clock.