BRITAIN AND THE TOTALISATOR.

Evening Star, Issue 19923, 20 July 1928, Page 6

BRITAIN AND THE TOTALISATOR.

TTte changed ntlitudo of tho British Government to Major Glyn’s Racecourse Betting Bill is evidence of its recognition that nothing can be worse than a law which is being flagrantly evaded. Not long ago Mr Winston Churchill took some risks of offending very distinct and opposite sections of public opinion by instituting a tax on betting. The “sportsmen” wanted to bo left alone,.and the “ unco’ guid ” resented the idea of the State deriving money from a source they considered tainted., The aim of tho Chancellor of tho Exchequer was professedly twofold—be wanted more revenue, and he wanted to bring betting under better control, and if possible stem its rather alarming expansion, particularly at a time when concentration on productive work ami thrift seemed the only possible course to follow unless the path to national degeneracy were to be deliberately chosen. It is .quite plain that

Mr Churchill is disappointed with the working of the betting tax. It is most difficult to collect from the considerable percentage of unscrupulous among the bookmakiug fraternity, and positive evidence that taxation has had any effect whatever on the volume of transactions is lamentably wanting. To illustrate the scope of the mania in Britain, it has been estimated that two hundred millions sterling changes hands annually ou the racecourses alone; while there can be no possible close estimate of the amount of wagering away from the courses, this being the evil more dreaded than the other. It was probably therefore with an eye fully as expectant as critical that the Minister regarded the introduction, by a member of his* party, of a Bill to legalise the totalisator on racecourses, in moving' the second reading of this Bill last March Major Glyn used all the arguments in favour of machine betting with which New Zealanders arc quite familiar. But in one respect this measure does not propose to follow New Zealand practice. The bookmaker is •not to bo abolished, but will bo on his mottle to prove his worth against a machine. It u claimed that the result would bo the weeding out of the undesirable, and the regulansation ot the position of -the reputable non-tas-evacling bookmaker. An S per cent, levy on the machine’s turnover is to furnish revenue to the Government and funds for racing purposes and chanty. Major Glyn had the support of the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee, the governing bodies of the English turf, to whose hands totalisator administration would bo entrusted, as well as the control of bookmakiug. ft was -chiefly on the score of granting those bodies this monopoly that tho opposition to the Bill in tho Commons was based, and it came from representatives of very varied interests—the friends of tho bookmaker, lest he should be taxed out of existence by the Jockey Club as a trade rival; the Labour members, on the ground of tho Jockey Club and’Hunt Club not being democratic-ally-chosen bodies; and the antagonist of racing ou general principles, Had it not been for the last-minute intervention of Mr Churchill in the debate it is doubtful if the Bill would have got its second reading, for there was only the thin margin of fifteen votes in its favour. Ho ridiculed the idea that ho was influenced by the bait ol financial gain to the Treasury by more efficient collection of taxation minute compared with a total taxation of about S4O millions sterling. (Ho appears smeo to have modified that very detached attitude.) He admitted that tho change would bo a hardship to bookmakers, since although the “inspired money” would continue to be placed with them the “mugs’ money ” would bo diverted to tho machine. Diminution of an evil by taxation rather than by prohibition of it was a principle to which he gave his approval in tho light of past experience ou other “ luxury ” matters. The House *of Commons complied with his suggestion to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee to investigate what should lie the relations between tho Jockey Club and the bookmakers and between the Jockey Club and the Exchequer. The committee held numerous sittings, and the Government’s interest in the measure became more and more apparent. Amendments were inserted at the instance of the Undcr-Eeeretary to tho Home Office which provoked tho comment that the Homo Office was going to bo “ both bookmaker and bobby.” The Jockey Chib and the Hunt Club are not to bo given autocratic powers. ’There is to he a Board of Control so appointed and so empowered as to give some point to the criticism that the administration of the country would be linked up with the administration of a machine on a racecourse. This is virtually what happens in New Zealand. Civil servants aro deputed to be in attendance at the working of the totalisator and safeguard the Slate’s financial interest, among other duties. It seems tho only practicable way for Britain also to ensure tho payment of the lull 2J per cent, of turnover which is earmarked for tho Chancellor of the Exchequer. The amended scale of bookmaker-bet-ting taxation would , make it to the State’s financial advantage that tho bulk of tho public’s gambling should bo by the medium of tho machine. it looks probable that, this being now a Government measure, party ■ pressure will bo exerted to make it law. Tho way in which tho prospects of the introduction of the totalisator on British racecourses have improved almost from zero during tho past few months is really surprising, but the chaotic state of the laws of betting in Britain really demanded a radical change of some kind.