HL Deb 06 May 1958 vol 209 cc11-22

3.3 p.m.

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 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 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 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; 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, 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 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 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 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 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.

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.