HL Deb 28 March 1962 vol 238 cc961-3

2.35 p.m.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the risk of fatal injury or some permanent brain injury to participants in prize fights, they will take steps to prohibit such contests in Britain or, alternatively, in the event of a fatal incident, charge fight promoters with incitement to manslaughter.]

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the introduction of legislation to prohibit professional boxing contests would be justified. The question whether criminal proceedings should be instituted is a matter for the prosecuting authorities on the facts of a particular case.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, in view of the overflowing of our prisons, borstal institutes and remand homes, does the noble Lord think that it improves the quality of our youth to bring into the living rooms of our people, two or three times a week, pictures of fighting masquerading as a sport? Does he think that this is in the interests of law and order in this country? Could I also ask whether he realises that cock-fighting was banned in this country, not for the sake of the animal but because the violence tended to brutalise the people?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, in reply to the noble Lady's second question, it is, of course, also true that prize fighting is illegal in this country—prize fighting being a fight to the finish with bare fists. Nevertheless, I interpret the noble Lady's question as referring to a professional boxing contest. As regards her first supplementary question, I realise from what she said that she does not like boxing particularly as a form of sport. Nor do I particularly. But I do not think the fact that neither the noble Lady nor I may put boxing very high in the list of sports we enjoy watching, either in boxing rings or in our homes, is a reason for asking that it should be prohibited.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, why does the noble Lord seek to protect unprincipled fight promoters who are undermining the health of young men and undermining the morals of the onlookers?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I think the answer to that is that the risk of injury or even of death is inherent to some degree or other in almost every form of sport. That risk is accepted by those who participate in it, whether as amateurs or professionals. During the years 1955 to 1958, 50 deaths of males aged between 10 and 49 resulted from sporting injuries. Of those 50, one was caused by boxing—that was a head injury—9 by playing rugby football, 13 by playing association football and 14 by playing cricket, 13 of which were head injuries. Those figures tend to show that rugger is 9 times, association football 13 times and cricket 14 times more dangerous than boxing. I cannot see the logic of suggesting that boxing should be prohibited unless at the same time the noble Lady is going to advocate the prohibition of other forms of professional sport which are more dangerous or equally dangerous.

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is he who is being illogical, because of all these sports and so-called sports, only in boxing is the primary objective to render your opponent insensible?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I very much doubt whether, if the noble Lady were to ask the eminent boxers or the British Boxing Board of Control what the definition of the object of boxing was, they would agree with her in her definition. She is entitled to say that a boxer sets out to hit his opponent; but, equally, I could say that when you play rugby football you set out to hurl your opponents to the ground.

LORD AILWYN

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is no evidence that the British public have any wish to become a nation of pansies?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I think I must accept what my noble friend says as to that.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two supplementary questions? The first is whether every Question put in your Lordships' House is not put by the permission of the House; and is it not a breach of our custom to make insinuations against people who cannot defend themselves in this House, by calling them unprincipled? Secondly, is this rendering of people insensible not a well-known and universal technique of the medical profession?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I am sure that what my noble friend said in the latter part of his question is true. I do not think the first of his supplementary questions is really a matter for me.

LORD REA

My Lords, in view of the undermining quality of witnessing contests and rendering one's antagonists insensible, will the Government bear this point in mind when considering the televising of Parliamentary proceedings?

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I think it is probably now time to clear the ring and make way for the heavyweights who will be taking part in the next bout.

Back to