"TOTE" AT HOME

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 122, 25 May 1928, Page 9

"TOTE" AT HOME

BILL GIVEN CHANCE SECOND READING DEBATE FREE VOTE OF HOUSE (From "Th« Port's" representative.) LONDON, ,21st March. Major Glyn 's Bacecourso Betting Bill came up for discussion in the House of Commons and was given a.second reading on a freo vote of the Souse. There voted for the second reading 151 against 136, so that the majority was the slender ono of 15. Tho speeches cf the opponents to the Bill revealed that what they principally disliked was not the substitution of tho mechanical for the ' human bookmaker, but betting itself. Mr. Churchill, in his speech supporting the Bill, reserved to himself complete freedom, in the-Committee stage, so that it is probable that the Bill, if ever it becomes law, will be a different thing from what it is now. In its present form it merely says that the provisions of the Betting Act of 1853 ■ shall not apply to racef ourses under the rules of the Jockey Club and National Hunt Club. It never mentions the totalisator, but simply allows betting in a "place" on these racecourses. The totalisator is legalised because it must necessarily occupy a "place." Major Glyn, Unionist M.P. for Abingaon, opened the1 debate. He said that the Bill- sought to remove certain anomalies which existed in regard to betting on racecourses while racing wbb in progress, and only on those racecourses where the rules of the Jdckey Club and the. National Hunt Committee prevailed. It was proposed to set up on racecourses a machine called a totalisator, or pari mutuel, and he believed that by these machines, which' were nothing rnoro or less than mechanical . bookmakers or Robots', it would be possible to" improve the conditions generally for everybody who was interest^, ed in. horse-racing. He thought that tho racing public were intelligent, and that they would recognise that any recommendations mado by the National Hunt Committee, and the Jockey Club . would probably be better for racing than those of other persons who had not got the same responsibility. '' BOOTES AND VAGABONDS.'' , In no country in the world were the betting laws in such a fantastic and ridiculous position as. they were here. It was necessary that hon. members , should ask themselves '• whether . all these points which had. been showered upon them from those interested in the business of betting were altogether disinterested. It would have been fnr . better if the Government had seen fit to go into this matter, and iiad conducted a general review of betting in this country, "but he was equally convinced that when, after a careful inquiry for several weeks, by recognised authorities on racing, those authorities camo to Parliament and asked for help to bring order out of chaqg and institute control where there was -no control at preseft, they ought to reeeivo support. The Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee ask-. Ed that Parliament should give a second reading to tho Bill, so that its details could be thrashed out in Committee. By means of this Bill control: would be exercised both ; by means of inaehines arid by the fact that places would be allotted to bookmakers, who would continue to operate as they did to-day, but ho hoped under far more satisfactory . conditions. He believed that tho majority of bookmakers would bo very glad to see this Bill passed, in order that they might have additional comforts and protection. Ho (Major Glyn) had never been, enthusiastically in favour of the betting duty, but that duty was now in force, and ■ there could be nothing worse than a law which was being evaded. Such evasion must be demoralising to the population, and he thought the totalisator would make it possible for the Government to collect the tax. He hoped at least that the totalisa-' tor would help the Chancellor to have his betting, tax collected' with regularity and accuracy, which was an important matter in relation to taxation. Some people believed that betting was I «n .evil in the State. He supposed that even they would not deny that far more crime arose from credit betting than from crfsh betting. • The Police Court reports showed that, people stole and embezzled to meet their ' betting liabilities. That meant that they betted on credit. : Ono did not hear of people stealing or embezzling,in order to get money, to bet. The machine would only, recognise cash; and that, being so, he thought it" was going to make betting cleaner. The Bill would need tp.be amended in Committee. It had been discovered that under the Vagrancy Act it was possible for persons using the totalisator to be charged with being rogues and vagabonds. (Cheers and laughter.) HOSTILITY OF LABOUE. Labour was evidently very hostile to the Bill. Mr. Kelly, who moved the rejection, described the Bill as >. one for the encouragement and extension of betting. It was an outrage that the Housre of Commons should, in 1928, be troubled with a measure of this kind. To suggest that the purpose of the Bill was to assist agriculture was a begging of the question and a misleading of the people. One would imagine that there was no unemployment problem in v the country, and that the only question the House of Commons need devote itself to was that of setting up a machine known as the totalisator. This was a Bill for giving additional faciliites for gambling. (Hear, hear.) He was not going to deal with1 the rights or' wrongs of betting,' except to say that he thought it was against tho best .interests of the country that ma--1 chinery should be set up which would enable greater facilities to be given for gambling than was tho case at present. No reason had been given by either the mover or seconder for handing over this monopoly to the Jockey Club and fhe National Hunt Committee. The two best speeches against tho Bill came from the Conservative benches. Sir Basil Peto, who seconded the rejection of tho measure, objected to the Bill on grounds not in the least Puritanical. He disliked what he regarded >as the tyranny of the Jockey Club'over tho bookmakers, and the kind of partnership in the collection oi the betting tax which the Chancellor apparently proposes to make with the totalisator. A stronger speech against the Bill was that of Major Hills, who argued very trenchantly against the alliance between the Treasury and the Jockey Club. A" very learned speech in support of' the Bill was made by Sir Henry Cautley, who was chairman of the recent Committee on the betting tax. His' wain point was that betting had bitten too deep' into national habits to be banned. All you could do was to regulate and control, and the oasiest way of doing that was by taxation. This Robot bookmaker was an ideal instrument of taxation. Eaeing benefited tho thoroughbred horse industry, he said, which was the foundation of our light labour horses in this country. We in , this country produced the best sires for thoroughbrqd stock in the world. We did a very large trade in that sort of stock. Every other country except the United States taxed bet-

ting, and they all encouraged the breeding of thoroughbred stock and did something for racing, making a contribution out of tho totalisator for that purposo. Ho had alwyas thought that we, being leaders in this line oi business, which was a very valuable industry, should do something to assist it. For those reasons, and being absolutely independent of racecourses and betting, ho supported this Bill. GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE. Mr. Churchill was as convinced of their disinterestedness as of their inability seriously to assist a Budget of £840,000,000 by acting as agent of the State in respect of a minor tax. The constitutional point did not thereforo arise. The moral point as to whether there should be prohibition of an. intrinsically or regulation of a potentially unclean thing' was a matter of opinion, but he thought the doctrine of regulation had it. In any caso the Government, while not prejudging ii, would act on the advice of the House of Commons, and, if this advice were favourable to tho Bill, would give it further facilities. He added, significantly, that the bookmakers would certainly bo adversely affected, and that the rate of the betting tax would have to bo reconsidered. No such qualified favour, however, would have been shown if the Bill had applied to those "animated roulette boards," greyhound racing tracks. Personally, he would vote for.the Bill, because a report of two Customs officials whom he had sent out to various racecourses had shown him that they did these things more quietly and more modestly in France, and because ho did believe there was virtue in the breeding of bloodstock. _ An analysis of the. official division list on the second reading shows that, ■including the tellers, 151 members supported the Bill and 136 opposed it. The various political parties were divided as follows:— For the Bill. Against. Conservatives 145 46 Labour .......... 3 71 Liberals 2 17 Independents .... 1 2