HL Deb 15 January 1985 vol 458 cc925-37

6.51 p.m.

Lord Newall

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

This rather modest Bill which I am promoting is designed almost exclusively to assist the present declining fortunes of greyhound racing. The Bill will endeavour to do two things; namely, to deregulate both greyhound and horse racing from the present restrictions on the number of betting days it can be held in the licensing year. Greyhound racing is presently constricted to 130 days and horse racing to 104 days. Greyhound racing also must notify the racing authority 28 days in advance of the month when racing is due to take place and not more than 14 such days can be held in a month. Horse racing does not have this particular restriction. It is also intended to legalise carry-forward pools in greyhound racing on lines similar to those currently operating in horse racing.

The House may remember that in 1980 I was able successfully to promote another Bill for greyhound racing which increased the number of races at race meetings and also increased the number of special betting days. At that time negotiations had not been held with the Home Office concerning these two further points which are now before the House in this Bill. However, consultations have been taking place with the Home Office, and their help is very much appreciated.

Before I refer to the detailed provisions of the Bill I thought that I should outline to the House the current problems affecting greyhound racing. It is still the second largest spectator sport in the country after soccer, attracting annually some 4½ million patrons. It has an on-course betting turnover of £230 million, but 75 per cent. of this is with the on-course bookmakers, and £600 million is bet off the course.

Greyhound racing must operate as a commercial enterprise because it does not receive any subvention by way of off-course levy, as is the case with horse racing. It is the permitted percentage from the greyhound totalisator, currently fixed at a maximum of 17½ per cent. by order made by the Home Secretary, which, together with profits from admissions and catering, form the main source of revenue to a greyhound operating company.

The fact that the maximum permitted percentage is now so high possibly reflects the inflation which has occurred over the last 16 years, since it was first increased in 1969 from the then 6 per cent. Too high a deduction from the greyhound pools (now 21½ per cent., which includes the 4 per cent. on-course general betting duty) is making betting with the tote unattractive and patrons are turning more and more to the on-course bookmakers, who contribute nothing to the running of the tracks and stadiums. The amount which the bookmakers pay for the right to make their books is limited by statute to merely five times the admission charge for the enclosure in which they operate—a farcical state of affairs which, I am pleased to say, the bookmakers are now beginning to recognise. But until it is changed they are on the pig's back. Perhaps in another parliamentary Session there may be an opportunity, with the consent of the Government, for a further Bill to be introduced to amend Section 18 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 by way of an agreed amendment.

I do not know how many noble Lords have gone to the dogs; it is not public knowledge. But before I elaborate on how dog racing can be helped by my Bill, perhaps it is worth touching on the social importance of our sporting events in society. It is common knowledge that opportunities for leisure activities are increasing all the time during the passage of our lives. It must, therefore, be sensible to try to maintain and improve our existing sporting facilities, which have provided entertainment for a large number of spectators for many years. Greyhound racing has suffered adversely from the legalisation of the betting offices in 1961 and, as I have said, it was not given the protection of an off-course levy at that time in the same way as was horse racing.

In addition, greyhound racing was singled out for special taxation from 1948 to 1966, independent of all other betting sports which were not similarly taxed. The pressure on greyhound managements to redevelop their race courses for other purposes, such as supermarkets, is now immense because the current return now being obtained from the promotion of greyhound racing and other associated sports is insufficient for their capital assets.

The Government have done well out of greyhound racing by way of its revenue from taxation, but if this Bill were not to proceed, there can be no doubt that greyhound racing would cease as a national spectator sport within two or three years and the Government would lose approximately £8 million per annum. If this Bill is acceptable to Parliament, then the Government can at least be assured that the revenue will by and large be retained.

I shall now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 1(a) removes the present restrictions that carry-forward pools cannot be operated at a greyhound track. All pools must currently be completed by the end of the meeting, and this clause will now remove that prohibition. This is an enabling provision, as the Home Secretary will need to make new regulations to provide for these new pools. It is no different from the jackpot and what goes on in horse racing. Subsection (b) provides that when a pool is carried forward the appropriate deductions for both the allowed percentage and the on-course general betting duty shall be made from the pool before the net units then remaining are transferred to the next meeting.

Subsection (c) is merely a procedural amendment and provides for notification to the accountant who is appointed at each race meeting by the licensing authority whenever the totalisator is being operated. Subsection (d) relates to a further sophistication of the carry-forward pools in that multi-venue pools could be established so that if they are not won at track A, they could be transferred to track B by consent. In that case the totalisator accountants will be the authorising persons in relation to the transferring of the necessary units from track to track. There is no difference from horse racing in this suggestion; it is already happening there.

Broadly speaking, there are three types of pools which the British Greyhound Racing Board have in mind. There are the carry-forward pools, which would be operated at a race course on a single race or a series of races, and, in the event of no winning bets, a pool carried on to other meetings at the same race course until such time as the pool is won; the multi-venue pools, which would be an extension of this, with the idea of carrying forward the pools to another race course on one or more races and on further race courses until the prize was won: and, lastly, inter-track pools, which would be a device to enable racegoers at other tracks to make bets on to the track where the inter-track pool is being operated. If, for example, a punter at Newcastle wished to place a bet on the Greyhound Derby at Wimbledon, he would be able to have his bet transmitted by landline to the tote at the London track. Horse racing has the equivalent already.

In the case of all these carry-forward pools, the appropriate deduction for betting duty and operating expenses would be made and extracted before the pool was passed on to the next meeting. At the next meeting, or at the next racecourse, deductions would only be made on the extra money added to the pool at that meeting. On each occasion the tote accountant, who is appointed by the licensing authority, would certify the net amount of units to be carried forward and the pools would then operate in accordance with the statutory regulations.

I think I should mention that at the present time the Dog Racecourse Totalisator Regulations, which were amended in 1967, provide for a very detailed supervision over the construction and operation of the greyhound totalisator. In addition, an accountant and a skilled mechanic are appointed by the licensing authority, who are able to ensure that at all times the totalisator is operated correctly. It is not intended in any way that these arrangements should be amended in any form, and, indeed, the greyhound racing fraternity wants them to continue. It is very much hoped that carry-forward pools will appeal to patrons in order to bring them back from the betting offices to the tracks—because these pools would be operated only on the course and it would not be possible for off-course betting offices to participate in them. Eventually the 1967 regulations will, it is hoped, be amended to incorporate provisions for these new types of pools, and be related to the use of the computerised technology which is now available. Many of the totalisators currently in operation are out of date and need to be replaced by more modern equipment, which is much easier to obtain and gives more detailed information to the accountants and the management.

Clause 2 is basically a repeal measure in order to achieve the deregulation of the sports of greyhound and horse racing. At the present time it is felt that local managements should have more flexibility to decide when race meetings will take place, having regard to the wishes of their local patrons. For instance, seaside tracks such as Yarmouth and Brighton will be able to race more times in the summer and fewer times in the winter period to suit their local arrangements. The present statutory restrictions prohibiting racing on Sunday, Good Friday and Christmas Day will still operate. Perhaps I should mention also that the Royal Commission on Gambling stated in its final report that, as opportunities for betting were now available universally from licensed betting offices, the case for abandoning restrictions altogether was now a real one, especially as they felt that only a few more meetings would be held because demand would not sustain them.

With regard to horse racing, the amendment now proposed is to remove an outstanding anomaly no longer required, particularly if the Bill is successful for greyhound racing. There is no point in retaining on the statute book a restriction which is not used because, as is well known, horse racing does not take place on a continual basis at any racecourse in Britain. As the House no doubt realises, statutory restrictions governing the operation of greyhound racing were first laid down in the Betting and Lotteries Act 1934 and are still in continuance at the present time, save only where they have been amended by private measures such as this Bill. Greyhound racing is a very well organised and well conducted sport, and it does not incur any difficulties with its spectators such as occur in other activities.

Before ending, perhaps I should stress that Clause 1 is only an enabling provision to allow some flexibility of betting on tracks, to counteract the imbalance in favour of betting in shops. It is hoped to encourage more people on to the tracks, where the whole family can be catered for with good amenities and excellent meals. Horse racing already has these facilities, so why deny them to greyhound racing? The principle is not new, and so the consequences are easily foreseeable. Without Clause 1 betting shops will win, greyhound racing will die, and both bookmakers and Government will lose a large slice of revenue. So I hope the House will understand the need to assist greyhound racing. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Newall.)

7.5 p.m.

Lord Westbury

My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Newall on introducing this Bill at such an appropriate time. When many horse racing fixtures have had to be abandoned due to the arctic conditions we are experiencing, the fortunes of the nation's punters are at present resting heavily on greyhound racing.

Speaking on behalf of the Jockey Club, of which I am a member, I wish this Bill a successful and speedy passage. However, for those Members of your Lordships' House who have not had a chance to study the full implications of the Bill, perhaps I should point out that although the Bill includes a provision to remove restrictions on the number of days in which horse racing may take place, it is actually of no great importance to the horse racing industry at this moment. The present restrictions mean that racing can take place on only 104 days in any one year at any one racecourse. As your Lordships will appreciate, the maximum number of fixtures which any one race course holds in a year is about 30—nowhere near the present limit of 104 days.

However, we should always be prudent and look to the future, and there may come a time (not in my lifetime, I hope) when, if we switch from turf to dirt tracks, we might conceivably wish to exceed the current restriction of 104 days. I therefore know that I speak on behalf of the stewards of the Jockey Club in supporting this Bill.

7.7 p.m.

Lord Mancroft

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Newall for the extremely able way in which he has introduced this modest little Bill to your Lordships' House, coming once again to the aid of the greyhound sport, as he did so successfully some four or five years ago. I hope he will meet with equal success tonight. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Westbury for his support on behalf of the Jockey Club.

Before I explain to your Lordships why I welcome this Bill, I must of course declare an interest. I am, and have been for the past eight years, the chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board, in which position I succeeded my noble friend Lord Ward of Witley, who I am glad to see in his place here this evening. This board is the controlling board of the whole of the sport. It represents all branches of the sport. It is democratically elected, and I hope, therefore, that I can be heard to be speaking on behalf of the sport generally.

The noble Lord, Lord Newall, mentioned attendance figures of four-and-a-half million for the last year. It is that which worries me and causes me to tell your Lordships about my worry. I am seriously worried—and my colleagues are, too—concerning the future of the whole of this sport. When I first took an interest in it, in the 'fifties when I was first an owner—and, I am happy to say, a successful owner—the attendance was 25 million a year, and now it is four-and-a-half.

If I may, in a moment I shall give your Lordships my thinking as to why that decline has occurred, but I should like to remind your Lordships of what the effect would be if that decline continues, as I fear there is a risk it may, and if the noble Lord's pessimism proves correct, as I fear it also may. First, there will he a loss of jobs in the sport. Secondly, we shall be depriving a large number of decent, ordinary people of their favourite sport. It is, as your Lordships now know, the second spectator sport in the country, after soccer. Unlike soccer, it is a respectable sport. Bottles are not thrown about; grandstands are not pulled down; and you very seldom see a policeman at a greyhound track. The reason, of course, is the very strict standard of stewarding which we insist upon in the sport and which the sport likes to have. Thirdly, of course, there will be an enormous loss of revenue.

The noble Lord's Bill does not ask for any favouritism to be shown to the greyhound sport. It merely asks that we should be treated fairly and on the same level as horse racing and other sports. That is something we have never had. We have never had parity. It has been this financial and fiscal prejudice that has given us so much of our trouble. Let me remind noble Lords of one or two examples.

The noble Lord has said that there is no levy. That was strongly brought home to me at once. When I was chairman of the tote some years ago I represented the tote on the Levy Board. I realised at once what a sharp difference there was financially between the two sports—one with the levy and the other one without it. Then there was the Royal Commission under Lord Rothschild which momentarily went off its head and decided that it considered greyhound racing to he an industry or a trade rather than a sport. With all possible respect to the noble Lord, Lord Westbury—the last thing I would wish to do is to offend him—if he turns his mind (and your Lordships do, too) to the sales that take place in the horse racing world where highly bred thoroughbreds change hands at astronomical figures, he will see that there must be some element of commerce in that. If your Lordships turn to football where slightly less well bred centre forwards also change hands at enormous rates, surely there is an element of commerce in that. To penalise us in the greyhound racing world because we are a trade seems frankly to be ridiculous.

The noble Lord, Lord Newall, has told us about the betting tax. I will not go into that in any detail now because I shall simply lose my temper. It is a very complex matter. Both the Jockey Club and ourselves have of course been many times to the Treasury, which unfortunately has slightly more important matters on its table at the moment, and we shall continue to do so on this matter. I do not want to offend the bookies, with whom I am on friendly terms, because they are represented on my board. They realise too that they are getting far too much of the gravy. They realise that and they realise that if this sport were to go out of business—if that is the right word to use nowadays—they would lose a very large amount of money, quite apart from the spectators losing their sport. So they have attempted to help by occasionally giving us benevolent donations. That is no way to run a sport and it is certainly no way to run a business.

Then there was the Bill which has exactly the same name as the Bill we are discussing this afternoon. It was introduced by Sir Ian Gilmour in another place and is now an Act; so I shall call it the Gilmour Act. This is the Act which makes life much more comfortable in the betting offices. The Home Office in the very near future is going to issue a paper describing exactly what it proposes and what it approves. My Lords, I do not like to say, "I told you so"; but I told you so. And so did the late Lord Wigg in the last speech he made in this House, and as usual it was a very powerful and persuasive speech. He said that the only effect of making betting shops more comfortable would be to take more money off the tracks and put more money into the bookmakers' pockets. That is what is happening now. That is the danger. We have mentioned this to the Treasury.

The last point I must make on this subject is this: what have we done in the sport to put our own house in order? Are we just crying before we are hurt? The promoters and all concerned with the sport have done everything they possibly can to make their sport more attractive, to make the facilities more readily available, to reduce prices and to make the racing of a higher standard. They have done everything they possibly can.

There have been two final straws to break the poor old greyhound's back. The first is television. This sport of ours is primarily an evening sport. Would your Lordships like to come greyhound racing with me this evening? I inquired of the track at Yarmouth two or three days ago whether they were thinking of having any racing as that was the next one on my list. They said that not only were they having no racing but that they could not see out of the window. Your Lordships would rather stay at home, would you not, in front of your televisions watching snooker and watching darts? I mention those two particularly because they are not very great sports but they are highly reasonable sports for the fireside and television. They are very agreeable sports to watch. They have taken a very great deal away from greyhound racing. One has only to look out of this window to see why. Furthermore, a greyhound race is a very difficult thing to televise in itself, if one were thinking of doing that. A game of snooker lasts half an hour; a race around the track at Yarmouth lasts 29½ seconds. It is not very easy to televise.

The next straw that has nearly broken the greyhound's back is the sale of some of the leading greyhound tracks. The noble Lord, Lord Newall, mentioned this. The White City, which is known as the flagship of the greyhound sport, has gone—I always think that that is rather an odd metaphor; if one called the "QE2" the stadium of the Cunard Line one would be in trouble, I think. There is a risk that Harringay may go and that others will go, too. But I believe there is a hope that the GRA, which owns the White City, may build a new track near Wormwood Scrubs.

The reason for it is obvious—there are not enough people to fill the tracks, for the reasons I have explained. The tracks were built to take 25 million people a year; there are now 4.5 million a year. So people who have to make money for their shareholders out of their tracks naturally look to a more lucrative outlet such as shopping markets. There are good parking facilities nearby and they are in the middle of populated areas. This is merely adding further to our troubles.

The Bill is a simple one. It will come to our aid. The jackpot provisions which the noble Lord has explained to us with some considerable clarity and detail are admittedly a little complicated. There may be i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed, in which case I am quite certain that the noble Lord who answers for the Government will help us do so. The opening times are only reasonable, surely. We have heard the publicans before us many times in this House talking about the ridiculous situation in a holiday resort like Cornwall, where nobody wants a pub opened on a day like this compared with the middle of August when they want the pubs opened for 12 hours a day. The same principle applies to our sport.

Therefore, I commend the Bill strongly to your Lordships as being a help. I hope that it will do a good deal to arrest what I regard as a dangerous decline. I was glad that the noble Lord mentioned the question of Sunday opening. I now speak only for myself, not for the rest of my board. I am opposed to it. I know opinions have been canvassed on this subject throughout the sport. I do not believe that the public will ever stand for betting on a Sunday, on horses or on dogs, as they do in Europe. I do not think so. On that uplifting and high-minded note, I ask your Lordships to support strongly my noble friend's Bill.

7.18 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I feel a sense of privilege in being allowed to participate in such an esoteric debate. I have learnt—and I am grateful for the lesson—from the noble Lord, Lord Newall, who introduced this Bill in such an appealing way, what forward pools are, what multivenue pools are and what intertrack pools are. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for learning that he is very friendly with bookies, and furthermore for knowing what his evening occupation is in watching television—darts and snooker: I must confess a complete surprise about someone who has such an academic mind and, I should have thought, far more literary tastes in the evening. However, all this I have been introduced to, and I am grateful for it.

If I may concentrate for one moment, seriously, on the provisions of the Bill, greyhound racing has been described as the poor man's sport. I am not quite so sure that it deserves that description now, but apparently the sport is in a parlous state and the recommendations that have been put before us that we should support the Bill seem to be based upon grounds of justice and fairness. And so from these Benches I have personally no objection to this Bill being granted the Second Reading for which the noble Lord asks.

I wonder whether, without any sternness in my voice at all and with some humility, I may turn to the noble Lord, Lord Westbury, only because, if I may say so, he might have created an undesirable precedent, which I am sure he did quite unconsciously. Twice in the course of his admirable speech he addressed the House and said that he was speaking on behalf of the Jockey Club and on behalf of the stewards of the Jockey Club. I would only remind him, with the utmost respect, of the rules of debates of this House. I am reading from page 41 of the Companion: When speaking in the House, Lords may indicate that an outside body agrees with the substance of the views that they are expressing: but they speak for themselves and not on behalf of outside interests". I know that the noble Lord will appreciate that the only reason I raise this point is that I am sure he would be the last person in the world to want to create a precedent by Members of this House thinking that it was in order to speak on behalf of outside interests. With those few remarks, I do not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

7.20 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I have listened with interest and respect to this debate. It has long been very clear that greyhound racing has fallen upon hard times. There was a time when it was a great national spectator sport. Millions attended the meetings up and down the country—25 million, my noble friend Lord Mancroft tells us. As he also reminded us, it is still the second most popular spectator sport in the country, but the number of tracks and the size of the gate have now decreased. One has only to drive out of London on the A40, as I often do, past the wreckage of the White City stadium, to see that it is the sport itself that is now in danger of going to the dogs.

I am not at all surprised, therefore, that the British Greyhound Racing Board and their supporters are looking about them for ways of lessening the difficulties which they face and increasing the attractions of what they have to offer. In my noble friend Lord Newall they have chosen a worthy champion—worthy and well qualified, for he has at least two private Member's Bills to his credit on the statute book.

Lord Newall

Three, my Lords.

Lord Elton

So, my Lords, one might say that my noble friend has both experience and form. And my noble friend Lord Mancroft speaks with considerable and apt authority as chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board—though not, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would hasten to assure us, on their behalf.

Your Lordships will know that successive Governments have acted, as this Government now act, on the principle that while people should not be prevented from betting, they should not be stimulated artificially into doing so. I believe this approach is one which the House as a whole would commend because of the difficulties which some individuals who gamble excessively can get into and because of the abuses which may arise when the wrong people are tempted to offer gambling facilities by the prospect of easy pickings. I take the principle of avoiding the artificial stimulation of demand for gambling as a starting point quite deliberately. It is not a principle we seek to apply slavishly to preserve provisions which in practice no longer serve any sensible purpose.

The Bill has, as my noble friend points out, two separate purposes, each comprised in a single clause. Perhaps I may take them in the order of the Long Title. The two purposes of the Bill are, first, to remove restrictions on the number of days on which horse racing and greyhound racing may take place", and, secondly, to enable pools on dog races to be operated in connection with more than one event and on more than one track". The first of those purposes is attempted in Clause 2 of the Bill and the Government are perfectly content for the objects of that clause to be achieved.

As my noble friend Lord Newall has said, the restrictions on greyhound racing date from 1934. In those days greyhound racing tracks provided the main opportunity for lawful cash betting in many urban areas. By limiting the number of greyhound race meetings and the number of races at each meeting it was possible to limit the opportunities for cash betting. Since 1960, however, we have seen the spread of cash betting shops into every high street and into many other shopping areas as well.

Few people who want to place a bet have to travel very far to do so. The number of greyhound races still operates as a brake on the amount of greyhound racing permitted and hence on the number of events on which betting is possible. But the ample opportunities most people now already enjoy to place a cash bet if they choose to do so in a betting shop, even with the controls over greyhound racing, mean that those restrictions no longer have the same significance.

I believe it would be generally accepted now that the sport itself should be free to arrange its fixtures as it sees fit, without artificial interference by statute. As my noble friend has indicated, the promoters intend that they should arrange greyhound racing fixtures more flexibly. It is not their desire to increase the number of race meetings drastically. With this in mind we see the logic, if the present restriction is to be changed, for it to be removed altogether, as the Bill proposes.

As my noble friend said in his introduction, the last Royal Commission expressed some sympathy with that view, even though it did not bring the matter to the point of an actual recommendation—chiefly, it would seem, because the representatives of greyhound racing at that time pitched their proposals modestly, asking for an increase in the number of days allowed rather than the removal of the restriction altogether. Now that greyhound racing would like to see the restriction removed, we can find no reason to object on grounds of betting policy and no reason to prefer instead a new, higher limit on the number of betting days. I am strengthened in that view by noting that provision will not be made for racing on Sundays or on Good Friday or Christmas Day.

As regard horse racing, my noble friend explained that the deregulation on the number of greyhound betting days in Clause 2 would at the same time remove an equivalent restriction on horse racing. As we understand it, there is no objection to this from those involved in horse racing, although, as my noble friend Lord Westbury has confirmed, it is unlikely to result in any changes to the horse racing calendar, at least in the foreseeable future. It was extremely helpful to hear my noble friend's remarks in this respect. For those reasons, we see no reason to object to Clause 2 of the Bill.

I said earlier that Clause 2 attempts to achieve the stated purpose. I did so because I believe it suffers from some drafting defects. I am all too aware of the very great difficulty of drafting statutes in a way that satisfies all the requirements of legislation. Our own draftsmen are at present under very considerable pressure, but I am glad to tell my noble friend and the House that the Government are nonetheless ready to give assistance with correcting the drafting of Clause 2, so that the aims as stated are achieved.

I now come to the second stated aim of the Bill and to Clause 1. I must at once tell your Lordships that there is a similar difficulty here, but that it is on a much more formidable scale. It is not, in the words of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, simply a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Clause 1 proposes to enable the greyhound tote to offer a greater variety of bets. We can see the attraction to greyhound tracks of offering to carry forward pools as my noble friend proposes.

When the restriction barring carry-forward pools was devised the computer technology which makes some of the pools possible now did not exist. But the restriction also reflected the nature of the system of surpervision being applied to betting at greyhound tracks. This is a local system, the most important responsibility of the local authority being to ensure that an accountant is appointed to be on the scene whenever the totalisator is in operation. He represents a safeguard on the security and integrity of local totalisator betting.

The proposal for carry-forward pools therefore goes to the heart of the control on tote betting at greyhound tracks. It envisages bets on races at more than one track or carrying forward money placed in bets to different tracks on different days. We do not suggest that this creates difficulties for the present system of local supervision which are necessarily insuperable. It is possible to imagine arrangements between the accountants at tracks which could, with good will on all sides, offer the same degree of supervision that exists at present. But the fact is that the proposal for carry-forward pools represents a fundamental change in the statutory control, and I am afraid that this has wide implications for the drafting.

I shall give just one example of the kind of difficulty we are up against. Clause 1(a) of the Bill tries to deal with the problem of rendering lawful the operation of a totalisator taking bets from a second track elsewhere in the country. But nowhere in the Bill is there any provision making lawful the placing of a bet at that second track to be included in the totalisator at the first track. For this reason we believe that the bets which are envisaged would remain unlawful under Section 1 of the 1963 Act. The principle that people attending greyhound tracks may bet only on greyhound racing unfolding at that time and at that course runs right through the 1963 Act and is not evident only at the point addressed by Clause 1 of this Bill. That is only one example of the sort of difficulties which confront any attempt to bring about this kind of change.

In order to put the Bill into a form which could be commended, we believe a considerable amount of work is necessary. While we sympathise with the purpose behind Clause 1, we do not at present have the spare capacity within the department which could be devoted to assisting the promoters with this task. The Government cannot, therefore, smile on Clause 1 as they are prepared to smile on Clause 2.

We shall certainly reflect on this debate, and I know that my noble friend Lord Newall and his supporters will want to do so, too. This may be a case, although it is not of course for me to press it, of "better half a loaf than no bread". I say this in a spirit of friendliness and with the prospects of the Bill making progress in another place this Session very much in mind. Time for debate and improving the drafting of Clause 1 will unavoidably be very limited. The prudent course on this occasion might well therefore be to concentrate efforts on Clause 2.

I must, of course, restrict myself to talking about the Bill in hand, but I should just mention that I was very interested to hear the suggestion that on another occasion the basis of payments to greyhound tracks by bookmakers, in Section 18 of the 1963 Act, might be the subject of a Bill. If the parties were able to reach agreement on a new basis for payment we would certainly look at that with an open mind.

I hope this explanation of the Government's attitude has been helpful. We can certainly see a case for both proposals in the Bill. For the reasons I have given, however, we feel bound to distinguish between them. Of the two, that in Clause 2, removing the restriction on betting days, seems to us to be the one that is most likely to succeed. I hope my noble friend and his friends, both here and outside Parliament, will take due note of which way the wind is blowing, and will set their sails to catch it.

7.32 p.m.

Lord Newall

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, not least to my noble friend Lord Westbury, who obviously, to my mind, spoke his own opinion and was able to bring in that he had some support from his friends.

My noble friend Lord Mancroft, who also gave great support to the Bill, made many telling points in his own inimitable fashion, pointing out that greyhound racing has many handicaps and labours under penal regulations which are not comparable with those in other sports. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the obviously lengthy time he has spent on the Bill, considering he has had nothing else to do for the past few days! His support is extremely welcome.

I come to my noble friend the Minister, who, of course, was quite justified in criticising the drafting of the Bill. Those of us who have been working on the Bill have always been aware that it had some short-comings, and I am sorry that I have not been able to introduce an enabling Bill which is technically perfect. I wonder if anyone ever has. I can only say that I shall be more than happy to co-operate with the Home Office and receive any drafting guidance which is offered. There is no doubt that betting and gaming legislation is extremely complex, and if there are some consequential amendments which should be made we shall seek to put that right in Committee.

My noble friend also indicated some concern over the safeguard arrangements for the carry-forward inter-track pools. I am more than satisfied that the arrangements for accounting and administration procedures will be enforced as efficiently and as well as they are currently operated on the greyhound totalisator. The rules are very stringent, and I am not certain why the Minister fears that the money might not be properly accounted for. Perhaps the problem is mainly in the drafting, and I accept that there are some problems. We shall no doubt look at the whole situation in greater detail to see whether we can come up with something which will make the Government understand that we are sincere and do not show any inclination to want half a loaf. We need a whole loaf; otherwise, the Bill is a waste of time.

Without further ado, I can only hope that the Bill does go some way towards restoring the balance in the racing industry, and hope that noble Lords will give it a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.