CLAUSE 6.—(Discretion of licensing authority as to grant of licences.) (Hansard, 5 November 1934)

§ Sir GERALD HURST
I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, to leave out "may," and to insert: shall have absolute and uncontrolled discretion to grant, or upon any ground which it may think sufficient to. This Amendment raises an important point, and it can be supported on grounds which, I think, ought to appeal to all parties in this Committee. When the Committee passed Clause 4, it sanctioned the choice of county and borough councils to be the licensing authorities. This Clause 6 has the marginal heading: "Discretion of licensing authority as to grant of licences." The issue before the Committee is whether that discretion should be a real or a sham discretion. I submit that, as it now stands, Clause 6 gives a discretion only in terms and not in substance. If the Committee will look at the grounds on which the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence, they will realise that those grounds hardly ever arise. They would arise in only about one out of every 100 cases. They are entitled under the Clause as 749 drafted to refuse a licence where the coming of a track would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood of the track. That would never occur for it is difficult to see why the introduction of a racing track would touch the health or comfort of anybody in a physical or direct sense. The Clause goes on to say: or be detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction; or…would seriously impair the amenities of that neighbourhood. If there were an actionable nuisance the track would not function in any case. The nuisance would be stopped, so that it is unlikely that a nuisance in this sense would be created. Why there should be "undue congestion of traffic," or why law and order should be prejudiced I do not know. They are contingencies which are also extremely remote. I say, therefore, that as the Clause stands the licensing authority would have practically no discretion at all. I suggest that the Committee would desire to see a real discretion and control. As the Clause is now drafted, it will be incompetent for a local authority to refuse to license a greyhound racing track upon the ground that in the opinion of the licensing authority the introduction of the track would be against the well-being of the neighbourhood or of the well-being of the people living in the neighbourhood. They cannot do it because it does not fall within the category of the grounds on which a licence can be refused. Some hon. Members may wish to see the discretion and the control a sham. If so, this Clause provides a sham discretion. If they want to have it a reality so that the licensing authority can consider the pros and cons of the incursion of a grey hound racing track, they ought to be in favour of giving complete and uncontrolled discretion to the local authorities. That is proper control, and it does seem to me to be the right thing, when it is proposed to give the great privileges and financial advantages which this Bill confers upon greyhound racing track companies, that there should be a real genuine popular control, and that that popular control and discretion should be exercised on any ground which the local authority think fit to put forward in resisting an application.
The object of my Amendment is to give absolute and uncontrolled discretion to 750 the local authority. That is more in accord with the view of those who want to see genuine local control over local conditions. The alternative has already been alluded to in a speech on an earlier Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), who said he had no doubt that the councils would first decide one way or the other, and then grope among the provisions of Clause 6 in order to find some legal pretext. That is probably what would happen. When a local authority or any other body has to have recourse to legal fictions to get out of a difficulty, it proves that the Act which they are trying to circumvent is badly drafted and ill-conceived. We should aim at having the control of the local authorities over the incursion of these greyhound racing tracks into an area. Rightly or wrongly, many local authorities may consider that these are pests which they wish to avoid. In other cases they may consider them blessings which they wish to have. Whichever view they take, they are entitled to give expression to it, but, as the Clause is drafted, it is a sham to suggest that the local authorities have discretion. With a view to making the discretion real and the local control a genuine local control, I move the Amendment.

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
If the Amendment were accepted, it would, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, give unfettered control to a local authority. It would, of course, immediately lay open for discussion the moral issue which Parliament has a right to decide, and has, in fact, as this Bill is drafted, decided. The moral issue is solved, and Clause 6 makes it clear under what terms the local authority should concern itself with this problem. It is on the question of amenities, public health and the preservation of law and order. The hon. and learned Gentleman made reference to the fact that he did not think public health was concerned. Undoubtedly it would be concerned if one of these things were placed next to a hospital. Nobody hut a local authority is in a position to decide a matter of that kind. In any case, it is Parliament's task, rightly or wrongly, to take up the moral issue and not to make it a dispute in local politics.

§ Mr. PIKE
I beg to move, in page 5, line 43, to leave out paragraph (i).
If these words are allowed to stand they might give rise to considerable antagonism. Who is to say that the establishment of a, dog-racing track, unless in the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, that of a hospital, would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood? Who is to define what is the neighbourhood of a track? I have a track in my division which is surrounded mainly by the heavy industry and working-class dwellings. About half-a-mile away from the entrance to the track is a Congregational chapel, and another mile and a-half away in the opposite direction is a Zion chapel. There is also on the opposite side of the road a literary society controlled by the Co-operative Wholesale Society. We can see that under the slightest possible pretext opponents to the granting of a licence would appear on behalf of their respective associations and claim that the establishment of a track would injuriously affect the health and comfort of the residents in the neighbourhood or would be detrimental to the interest of persons receiving instruction. A distance of one and a-half miles away would be regarded as in the neighbourhood of the track, because it is within the ward for which a member is elected to the local council, and the chapel would naturally he interpreted as being within the neighbourhood. That ward extends for three and a-half miles.
It is obvious that the word "neighbourhood" needs some further interpretation. I do not consider that any person should be allowed to oppose the granting of a licence on the ground that it would disturb the amenities of the neighbourhood. I am prepared to accept any reasonable opposition and to accept the wording of the Bill as it stands if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to include after "neighbourhood" the words "within a reasonable distance from." In the present circumstances what is there to prevent objection being made by a publican, for instance, within a quarter of a mile of a dog-racing track, who finds on racing nights his trade diminishes by 90 per cent. because of the existence of the track. Who is to say that he would not argue 752 that the track would be injurious to the health of the people and claim that a couple of bottles of Guinness would be to their advantage—so long as they drank it in his house? I agree that in the case of hospitals or nursing homes or schools no licence should be granted in the neighbourhood if the track would be injurious to those institutions, but who is to decide what is "the neighbourhood"? [Hoff. MEMBERS: "The local councils On local councils we have men of differing opinions and we know, in addition, that already power is vested in the local council to decide whether or not a licence is to be granted, and that they will not consider the grant of a licence if it is likely to be injurious to any section of the community within the neighbourhood of the proposed track.
I am convinced that these words are not necessary, because we have already taken the precautions which the paragraph seeks to apply, and I am certain that if the words are left in a lot of difficulties will arise unnecessarily. The deletion of the paragraph would not make the slightest difference to the successful operation of the Clause, and in view of the entanglements in which this paragraph may involve local authorities I ask the Government to say that they should be deleted, or that the Home Secretary should accept a manuscript Amendment to insert after the word "neighbourhood" the words "within a reasonable distance."

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
We have already debated this subject threadbare, and I was not astonished to find that the hon. Member had no new argument to put before us. I will tell him why it is necessary to give a local authority power to decide that a dog racing track shall not be established in a given neighbourhood. While the hon. Member was speaking I was thinking of that delightful piece of sculptural work in Llandudno depicting "Alice in Wonderland." There is a big piece of land near there. I would not, like the hon. Member to suggest that a dog racing track should be established there. He would find that he would not "get away with" the proposal. Again, if there were spare land alongside Westminster Abbey, the people running dog racing tracks would not in the least mind estab- 753 lishing a track right up to the doors of Westminster Abbey itself. Consequently this paragraph is very necessary.

§ Mr. PIKE
The hon. Member had no objection to the presence of those persons who attempted to Approach Westminster on the occasion of a certain demonstration in order to incite the Members of this House to vote in a certain direction.

§ Mr. DAVIES
I will give another case. Let us put it on personal grounds. Would the hon. Member like the main gates of a dog racing track to be right up against his own doorstep? That is a test.

§ Mr. PIKE
I should have no power whatsoever to say whether I liked it or not if the authority to which this Part of the Bill refers decided that it should be put there; and as a matter of fact have a dog track within three-quarters of a mile of my home.

§ Mr. DAVIES
Three-quarters of a mile is a fairly good distance from a dog track.

§ Mr. PIKE
No, it is not.

§ Mr. DAVIES
I will give another argument. There are districts in every town in which the amenities are greater than in other parts. There are public parks there. Are not the local authority entitled to say, "We have bought this big slice of land and turned it into a public park where the people can play tennis and bowls and enjoy boating, and are we to have no right to say that a dog racing track shall not be established at the park gates?"

§ Mr. PIKE
If the hon. Member is asking me, I say quite frankly that it would be perfectly right to give the local authority the power to say that a dog racing track should not be established there, in so far as they are the owners of the property, but my hon. Friend is trying to apply this to property of which the local authority is not the owner, but which has been bought by somebody else for the specific purpose of a dog track.

§ Mr. DAVIES
Either the hon. Member is dull or I am, and I am satisfied that I am not. I will put the case again. Suppose there is a spare plot of land owned by a private individual outside one of the main gates of a park in Sheffield or Manchester. If the hon. 754 Member had his way, he would not give the local authority power to say that a dog racing track should not be established there.

§ Mr. PIKE
I voted against it just now.

§ Mr. DAVIES
There are spots in this country in which every individual delights on account of their picturesqueness. There are spots which nobody, whatever his political or religious opinion, would like to see desecrated by a dog racing track. But I am going to say that, if I know the people behind this dog racing business, they would take no heed at all of that feeling, but would plant the track just wherever it would make a profit. Therefore, I claim that the local authority ought to be given the powers contained in this paragraph. Apart from politics I am a little sorry that the hon. Member does not stand for that bigger thing in life, the welfare of the community, when he talks on this subject.

§ Mr. PIKE
That is not fair.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) has moved this Amendment, which stood in my name. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) who, as far as I could understand what he said, was addressing himself to another Amendment.

§ Mr. DAVIES
You were not in when I spoke.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I heard most of what the hon. Member said. He was addressing himself to the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin), which relates to amenities.

§ Mr. DAVIES
Would it not offend the comfort of individuals who are sitting in a. park to have a dog racing track at the front gate of the park?

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
In the main the hon. Member was addressing himself to paragraph (ii), which relates to amenities. I put down my Amendment because I wanted to know what paragraph (ii) meant. The Committee did not receive much enlightenment from the hon. Member for Westhoughton. He says there are delightful places in this country which ought not to be desecrated by dog tracks. I have seen altogether four dog tracks, 755 one at Brixton which I sometimes pass on my way to my constituency but which I have never visited, and three which I have visited. Of those, one was built for the Olympic games, one was built as a football ground, and the other, the one I know best, at Wimbledon, where I used to be a councillor, was built specifically for the purpose of dog racing. The track which was built originally for the Olympic games was opened, when built, by the King of this country and the President of the French Republic. Structurally it was not regarded as offending the amenities of the district of Hammersmith where it was, as it happened to be adjoining Wormwood Scrubs. I want to know what is the difference between that place at Wormwood Scrubs when used for the Olympic games, when used, as it might be, for a football ground, when used for other exhibitions, and when used for a dog racing track.

§ Mr. DAVIES
Will the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) take it from me that a dog racing track has been established among new property outside Manchester, and that the value of the new houses has deteriorated because of the establishment of that track?

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Let us stick to my case for the moment. I was asking what was the difference in principle. Suppose someone opened a football ground near the property. The football ground would be largely attended, and people who attend football grounds make a good deal of noise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not at night"] A football match lasts for an hour and a half. I live three-quarters of a mile from the Fulham football ground, and the River Thames and a good part of Putney intervenes between me and it, yet I can hear the noise. So far as my comfort is concerned, the football ground is as bad as any dog track I have passed. I want to know in what way these things affect the health of the people. There is nothing insanitary about dog tracks, as I understand them. They may affect the, comfort of a person in precisely the same way as a football ground, Lord's Cricket Ground, or the Oval.
I do not understand what is meant. The paragraph contains a phrase 756 detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction, or residing, in any school or institution in that neighbourhood. I do not know whether on these tracks they race all day long but so far as I am aware they only race in the evening when the schools are closed. [An HON. MEMBER "When the children are in bed."] The question in this paragraph is not the interest of school children in bed but that of persons receiving instruction. Hon. Members, tackled on the question of people receiving instruction, talk about the same people in bed, and when they find they have slipped up there they talk about the question of comfort. They suddenly change their ground. We come to the question of people "residing in any schools or institutions in the neighbourhood." I do not know why that was put in. I see no difference between a child residing in a school and the same child residing in a cottage, their interests are identical.
These words are put in not, for any useful purpose, but to create a kind of prejudice. This paragraph is utterly useless. The ground is covered in the second paragraph. The hon. Member for Westhoughton did not say a single word on this paragraph that would not have been in order on the next. Why are these words brought in? I suggest that it is in order to create a general and vague atmosphere of prejudice, and that they do not mean anything. They are in the same category as a large number of resolutions passed at the annual conference of the Labour party. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Bristol?"] An hon. Gentleman refers to the Conservative conference. I was not at that conference, and I have never given notice of any resolutions at a Conservative conference, because I am not too much impressed. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were not at the Labour Party Conference."] No. I have never been asked, but I am living in hopes. I observe that wherever the conference is held they are always inclined to be brotherly with fraternal visitors. When you have your conference in Croydon, I will come as a fraternal delegate. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us in what substance paragraph (i) differs from paragraph (ii) and for what purpose it has been inserted.

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
Paragraph (i) provides for the licensing authority to refuse 757 to license a track if they are satisfied that the existence or the use of the track would injuriously affect the comfort or the health of persons in the neighbourhood, or be detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction or residing in any institution in the neighbourhood. I cannot help thinking that the Committee of the House of Commons is prepared to give the local authorities discretion in these matters which they know and with which they are in close personal contact. It is inconceivable that anyone should suggest that one of these tracks should be put in close proximity to a hospital or a school.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
Has the Home Secretary hospitals in mind? They are not mentioned in the paragraph.

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
"Institution" covers a hospital. When people talk about things like football matches it must be remembered, as some hon. Members have said, that they are only temporary and open only at certain times of the day. They do not go on for long periods like racing on these tracks. In the circumstances, I do not propose to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. PIKE
Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to the insertion of the words "within a reasonable distance from"?

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what is the difference between paragraph (i) and paragraph (ii)?

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
The difference is that one follows the other.

§ Vice-Admiral TAYLOR
On a point of Order. Do I now move the Amendment standing in my name to leave out paragraph (ii)?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That Amendment is not selected. The next Amendment I select is that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Aston (Captain A. Hope).

§ Mr. HANNON
On a point of Order. I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aston (Captain A. 758 Hope) to move that Amendment. May I do so?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I was calling the names as they appear on the Order Paper. I called Captain Hope, and I now call Lieut.-Commander Tufnell.

§ Lieut.-Commander TUFNELL
I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, to leave out, "result in undue congestion of traffic, or ".
This paragraph restricts the licence in cases of undue congestion of traffic. It is unnecessary. Surely this Bill deals with betting and not with traffic control. If there were such a Clause, suredy it should be in the Road Traffic Act, and should be applied to all forms of traffic, and should apply to football and other forms of sport. It seems to me absurd that, because a certain legitimate amusement of a great number of working men in this country is popular, there should be a possibility of the licence being removed from them, and that under this paragraph greyhound racing tracks should be penalised. I ask that this paragraph should be taken out because I think it is a restriction of our liberties and is irritating and vexatious. I trust that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. HANNON
I support this Amendment. My reason for rising before was that when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aston (Captain A. Hope) left the Committee he asked me if I would move his Amendment, and I should have had great pleasure in doing so. It seems extraordinary that this condition should have been inserted in the Bill. In the immediate neighbourhood of Birmingham we have three large football clubs, namely Aston Villa—of which I have the honour to be president—West Bromwich Albion and the Birmingham Club. Of these three clubs, sometimes two, and nearly always one, have big matches during the football season. It might be said that immense congestion of traffic arises, but, if these clubs were in the unhappy position of having to apply for a licence, would they have to show that there would be no undue congestion of traffic in approaching their football grounds on the occasions of these 759 big matches? I do not think that my right hon. Friend ought to impose conditions on the local authority in issuing a licence for a racing track which are not imposed upon football clubs in carrying out their contests. As my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested, there is a tendency on the part of the Government to interfere too much with the discretion of local authorities in issuing these licences. To lay down a general discretion is quite appropriate, but when you tell the local authority that they are to have regard to the question of undue congestion of traffic, proximity to some institution or another, and a whole series of considerations of that kind, I think the central Government is going too far in limiting the discretion of the local authority. I would ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, if he cannot see his way—he has not done so very much in relation to this Bill—to accept the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend.

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I think that on consideration the Committee will agree that in this Bill, which of course deals with betting, it is right and proper that we should give to the local authority the opportunity of considering, having all the circumstances before them, whether they should or should not take certain steps to deal with this problem from the point of view of betting. Many of these tracks are put down next to great arterial roads, or in such circumstances as to create a considerable problem. This Bill, of course, is limited to those places where betting actually takes place. My hon. Friend, in speaking about Aston Villa, does not suggest that betting takes place at football matches—

§ Mr. HANNON
Oh, no. I would like to assure my right hon. Friend and the Committee that these football contests in Birmingham are conducted on the highest moral plane.

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
Be that as it may, at any rate we are dealing here with one problem, and that is a problem connected with betting at these large grounds. We are not now dealing with football grounds; that is a matter which perhaps might properly be dealt with another time; but here we are giving to the local authority power to consider these pro- 760 blems with the knowledge that they have of the local conditions.

§ Vice-Admiral TAYLOR
May I ask the Home Secretary why it is necessary to have these special regulations in regard to dog racing tracks which do not apply to football grounds, which probably draw much larger bodies of people than greyhound racing tracks or other places for amusement and entertainment? Why is it necessary specially to have these regulations only for dog racing tracks? Why are they singled out for these special rules?

§ Sir JOHN HASLAM
May I take it upon myself to say why restrictions are placed on dog racing tracks? It is because by this Bill we are conferring a great favour on a certain business. Instead of the State conferring benefits on football clubs and other organisations, the State collects a great deal of revenue from them, and they confer a benefit on the community; but he would be a very bold man who would say that dog racing tracks confer a benefit on the community. We are granting them by this Bill tremendous privileges, and we have a right to attach conditions to those privileges. I think that that answers the question of the President of the Aston Villa Club, and also that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor).

§ Mr. BANFIELD
As one who has had considerable experience of local authorities, I think it is most desirable that, when a Bill of this kind is handed to a local authority finally to use their discretion as to the granting of licences under certain conditions, the House of Commons should lay down definitely and in no uncertain language its precise intentions. I have had enough experience of local councils to know that, when these matters come to be considered by a local council, the councillors naturally ask the town clerk what precisely the Act of Parliament says. The town clerk prepares a memorandum based upon the Act of Parliament, and local councillors as a rule are very 10th to go outside the Act and are not much inclined to take any risk that they can possibly avoid. this issue may seem to be like a matter of A B C, but the fact remains that a dog racing 761 track may be in a very awkward place so far as traffic is concerned. The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) quotes the Birmingham football clubs as an analogy to this case, but he knows very well that the Aston Villa Club, for instance, is down in Aston, outside the main stream of traffic, in a very nice secluded spot where no difficulty or congestion can arise. Again, the West Bromwich Club is at least three miles from the centre of Birmingham, where no undue congestion can arise. But in the case of a possible new dog track this question of congestion is one of supreme importance.

§ Mr. HANNON
Does the hon. Member suggest for a moment that in the ease of a dog racing track you would have the numbers of people varying from 50,000 to 70,000, who go to our football matches? You would never get that kind of congestion in connection with dog racing.

§ Mr. BANFIELD
I think the hon. Member, as President of Aston Villa, would be very pleased indeed if these crowds of 50,000 or 70,000 materialised every time Aston Villa played in public.

§ Mr. HANNON
They do.

§ Mr. BANFIELD
The hon. Member ought to know better. The numbers that he quotes are not the rule but the exception. In exceptional circumstances you may get crowds of that kind. After all, one is bound to be brought to the conclusion that in a gathering where betting is permitted somehow or other a different set of circumstances and a different atmosphere is created. I am quite willing to accept from him that football matches in Birmingham are conducted in an atmosphere of the highest possible morality, although when I was: in Birmingham they acted somewhat differently. But in a matter of this kind, with the institution of the totalisator and the facilities for betting, it is a fact that a different atmosphere is created. There is a tremendous difference, and I think it is wise to lay down definitely to local authorities what are the conditions under which licences should be granted. It will help them in their work and it will make the matter clear. Over and over again I have heard a committee of the local council say, "Why on earth do they not make clear in the Act of Parliament precisely- what it is they want us to do?" If in this Clause we are laying down 762 even the A.B.C. of it, it is better to err on that side than to leave it in uncertainty and doubt.

§ Captain HEILGERS
I am not concerned with the atmosphere that is apparently created by the dogs. I wonder if the Under-Secretary has been to Wembley or Harringay or the White City and seen the crowds that arrive there. Great numbers of them arrive on foot. You see very little traffic on wheels of any sort, and you see very little congestion. I feel, therefore, that this is a matter upon which the Government might seriously consider giving way.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
Is it not the case that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken and the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) have replied to their own arguments? They must be fairly optimistic if they anticipate that the numbers going to greyhound tracks will be likely to cause undue traffic. If the Bill gets on to the Statute Book, I anticipate that there will have to be a lot of char-a-banc rides and a great deal of organisation to get people to go to the tracks at all, except perhaps in thickly populated areas like London. It seems to me that this is merely granting to the local licensing committees the power that they should have, in the event of undue congestion, to deal with it. The local authorities know their own districts. Why deprive them of the power of dealing with traffic in their own neighbourhood? As far as I can see, there is no likelihood of any undue congestion where any new track may be established, as distinct from existing tracks. I think the Home Secretary is quite justified in giving power to the licensing authtority to take into consideration all the things that are likely to be a disturbing factor to the peace, contentment and tranquillity of any neighbourhood where a greyhound track may be established.

§ Mr. LOGAN
I am surprised to hear, even among my own colleagues, complaints of the facilities that are being given to these people. If wonderful facilities are being given, wonderful regulations also are being laid down. The Grand National creates commotion from the early morning until late at night three days in the week and the police 763 deal with the traffic, but I do not hear anyone complain of congestion. I thought it was the duty of the police to regulate traffic.

§ Mr. R. J. RUSSELL
Would the hon. Member suggest that the conditions that apply to the Grand National perhaps three times in one week should apply to dog racing tracks?

§ Mr. LOGAN
Nothing of the kind. But you would think it was a penal settlement that you were regulating. It is a business venture, and I want a fair and square deal to be given to it. Why should one particular form of sport be singled out because some people do not want to go to it? I would not go because I do not see any fun in it. But I know others who do and are pleased with the entertainment they get. It is far better than going to a public house and drinking their money. It is not necessary to insert a Clause in regard to traffic when the police regulate the traffic in our streets. I object to people being penalised simply because a few cars more or less might go into a particular street. I go to a football match every Saturday, but no one complains of congestion. The tramcar service is interfered with, but people do not grumble at the inconvenience. If it is not going to have a penal Clause attached to it, why have it at all? I think that common sense should prevail in this matter. The police in the city of Liverpool certainly will be able to see that there will be no congestion of traffic, for they will move it on. I think that this penalty Clause should be taken out.

§ Mr. HANNON
I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, to leave out from "traffic" to the end of line 8.
I move this Amendment with a good deal of hesitation, because I have not the least hope that my right hon. Friend will make any concession upon it. It seems to me that the whole of this condition affecting the issue of a licence by a local authority is a little too exactly detailed. How is a local authority to determine on. an application for a licence whether it would "seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order"? Surely that is a very vague and indefinite condition to 764 attach as an instruction in the Act to the local authority concerning the circumstances in which they may issue a licence. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, that we do wish to have Acts as definite as possible to make for ease of administration. Can you conceive anything more indefinite and exasperating for a local authority to define than a condition phrased in these vague terms—"seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order." If the Solicitor-General were to be asked to give a specific instruction to a local authority in regard to a particular application for a licence, I would like to see the terms of that instruction, informing a local authority how to exercise it and what interpretation they were to put upon that instruction. I hope that this elaborate and complex series of instructions to local authorities as to the circumstances of the issue of licences may be modified or left out of the Bill.

Captain CROOKSHANK
The hon. Gentleman tells us that this is a very complex series of instructions to local authorities. I do not think that they are complex. I should have thought that they are quite common-sense instructions, every one of them. Moreover, we have chosen them to get over the difficulty which we discussed earlier on. The difficulty there was that the local authority might be moved by sentimental reasons or moral objections to betting in refusing a licence. We have said: "Let us lay down two or three standards which they must apply to a particular track, leaving out moral issues altogether." Now the hon. Gentleman complains that we are doing too much. I think it is a very reasonable thing to put in the words about the preservation of law and order. If the words were not in the Clause, it would mean that a local authority, though it knew that the establishment of betting facilities in a certain area would lead to trouble and would prejudice the preservation of law and order, yet would not be able to refuse a licence on those grounds. If you put the argument that way, it is clear that we ought to have words of this kind in the Bill. Moreover, the Committee have already passed Clause 5, and at the top of page 5 they will see that one of the persons who have the right to make representation to 765 the local authority on any application for a licence is the chief officer of police. If the chief officer of police, who is given a statutory right to make representations, is not to make representations about the preservation of law and order, I am not certain what is the use of inserting him as one of the persons to be consulted. We have agreed to that, and this is merely a corollary. It is one of the very restricted matters which the local authority have got to consider in discussing applications.

§ Mr. HANNON
I should like to ask whether in point of fact the insertion of these words does not suggest that the local authority are not competent to deal with the preservation of law and order?

Captain CROOKSHANK
It is not that the local authority are not competent, but if these words are not put in this would not be a satisfactory reason for refusing a licence. The local authority are perfectly competent to judge, but they would not be able to act on their judgment.

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, to leave out from beginning to "or" in line 14, and to insert "under this part of this Act."
This Amendment is to meet the doubt expressed lest under the Clause in its original form a licence might be refused if an applicant had been convicted of some trivial offence. The Government have come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to try and meet this objection, and the new Amendment is moved for that purpose.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
Has the right hon. Gentleman given the Committee all the reasons for this Amendment? It seems to me that the words "involving fraud or dishonesty" are very definite and specific and rarely apply to the minor offences referred to. It seems to me that if a licence is to be granted to a certain body of people for the purpose of organising gambling for their own private gain, we ought at least to be sure that they are reasonably honest people and have not been convicted of fraud or dishonesty. [Interruption.] Then I have 766 misread the Amendment. The words to be deleted are, "under this or any other Act."

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
Under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence in certain circumstances, and the hon. Member will see what the words are there. The Amendment proposes that this paragraph should read as follows: (b) "if the applicant or, where the applicant is the corporate body, any director or the manager thereof, has been convicted of any offence under this part of this Act or of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty. That is how it will now read. I would point out that even in respect of such an offence the licensing authority is not empowered to refuse a licence if it thinks an offence is trivial. It is hoped that this Amendment will really meet the criticism.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
It certainly does narrow the point down considerably if the licensing authority are now in fact to examine each individual case. I wonder whether the Home Office did ascertain exactly how many persons who are at present directors of greyhound companies have been convicted of fraud or dishonesty? Has the accumulation of that information had any effect on the right hon. Gentleman, or is it solely desired to deal with forthcoming applications for licences? Do we understand that this is merely an attempt to deal with the future and that it has no relation to existing directors or managers already controlling greyhound companies?

Mr. McCOROUODALE
I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, to leave out "or continuance."
I move the Amendment really to ask what exactly the words "or continuance" mean. It seems to me, on reading the Clause, that if there is a dog racing track in the area, and that area becomes scheduled under a town planing scheme the dog racing track can be shut up under that scheme. I should like to know whether that reading of "or continuance" is correct. If so, it seems to be a singularly harsh part of the Clause.

Captain CROOKSHANK
What this amounts to is that where a track is in an area which has been town planned, it has to conform to the planning arrangements. The whole question of town planning is a very intricate one, and there are all kinds of orders which are made, but there might very well be, for example, a case where a track had been established before the town planning scheme came into force, and no consent had been obtained from the planning authority. In that case, obviously, the consent of the planning authority would be required to enable the track to continue. I think that that is clear. There may be cases where a town planning authority has, in its town planning scheme, allowed a track to continue for a limited period, so that there again the planning authority should be consulted. But this particular Sub-section does not apply to the obligation of the person licensed in respect of an existing track. The existing track is covered by Subsection (4) of Clause 7. Generally speaking, this Sub-section is meant to deal with new tracks, that is to say, tracks that do not exist to-day but which make application for the first time. Obviously in that case they would be expected to come within the town planning scheme. In fact, knowing that a town planning scheme existed, they would know before they started to open the track in that particular area what the scheme was. The question with regard to existing tracks and existing town planning schemes can be raised on the next Clause.

§ Mr. McCORQUODALE
If I understand that this will not affect existing tracks, but only tracks which are likely to be started in the future, I would beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK
It might, if the existing tracks elected to apply for their licence under this Clause for seven years. It is more or less a reasonable assumption that all will take their five years' moratorium, at any rate, as a beginning.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment is a manuscript Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley)—In page 6, line 38, at the end, to insert: 768 ()The licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence in respect of any track except upon the following conditions:—

(a) No dog race shall be run on a track in public on any other than the appointed days fixed in pursuance of this part of this Act.

(b) At all dog race meetings there shall be a minimum charge for admission of the public to the meeting of sixpence for each person.

(c) Not more than twelve dog races may be run on a track in public on any one day with the exception of the four Bank Holidays a year when there shall be allowed 24 races per day.

Provided that for the purposes of this Sub-section the expression the public shall not include persons engaged in the management of the track or contractors or persons having business connected with the management of the track, or owners or trainers of dogs engaged in racing on the track or representatives of the press, and the expression 'in public' shall be construed accordingly. I think that the hon. and gallant Member ought to drop paragraph (b) of his Amendment, as we have already taken the decision of the Committee on that point. If he will move it with paragraph (a) and (c) only, I shall be prepared to accept it.

§ Sir ALFRED BUTT
On a point of Order. This is a very important Amendment and it is very difficult to follow it in manuscript form. Cannot we have it put before us in printed form?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that if the Amendment has to wait until it can be submitted in printed form, we shall have passed the point in the Bill where its insertion can properly be made. Manuscript Amenaments are not infrequently long in themselves.

Captain CROOKSHANK
Paragraph (c), which has to do with the number of meetings, is a question which has already been disposed of in Clause 1, and which I undertook to consider before the concluding stages of the Bill. In view of the Debate on Clause 1, I am not sure that this would not be a repetition also.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
All I can say is that Clause 1 is reported to this House without amendment, and that may be a ground for taking certain action with regard to Amendments. I do not think that I can go further.

§ Mr. THORNE
Is it not rather unfair that a long Amendment like this should be in manuscript form when the hon. 769 and gallant Member must have known last week that this Bill was to be taken in Committee to-day, and had plenty of time to put it upon the Order Paper?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I can assure the hon. Member that he is not the only one who is inconvenienced by long manuscript Amendments.

§ Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY
I beg to move, in page 6, line 38, at the end, to insert: the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence in respect of any track except upon the following conditions:

(a) No dog race shall be run on a track in public on any other than the appointed clays fixed in pursuance of this part of this Act.

(b) Not more than twelve dog races may be run on a track in public on any one day with the exception of the four Bank holidays a year when there shall be allowed 24 races per day.

Provided that, for the purposes of this sub-section the expression 'the public' shall not include persons engaged in the management of the track or contractors or persons having business connected with the management of the track, or owners or trainers of dogs engaged in racing on the track, or representatives of the press, and the expression 'in public' shall be con-Anted accordingly. As far as I read the Bill at the present time, on the days of betting any management could start greyhound racing at 10 o'clock in the morning if they so desired and carry on until 12 o'clock at night. This would destroy what many of us consider the sport of greyhound racing. On the question of profit from the totalisator, while it is negligible if it runs from 10 to 12 meetings a night, will begin to assume large proportions if you run 100 races a day as you are at liberty to do under the present Bill. That is why I move the first of these two paragraphs of the Amendment. First of all, if dogs are allowed to run every day of the week a situation will arise which they found in America when they tried to stop betting completely. As hon. Members know, they prohibited betting on all race tracks in certain States of America many years ago. They found it absolutely impossible to do so. I arrived at the racecourse outside New York where betting was completely prohibited. I went to a man who looked like a bookmaker and said that I wanted to bet and he replied "Deposit so much money with my friend outside, and you 770 can bet up to the limit of that sum." If you allow greyhound racing to take place on every day of the week betting is going to take place and I do riot think the law can stop it.

§ Mr. MAGNAY
On a point of Order. There is an Amendment standing in my name on page 132 dealing with this question. That Amendment is to Clause 9. Is not that the proper place to consider the question on how many days per week racing shall be allowed and how many hours of the day?

§ Mr. PIKE
Have we not already discussed this question on Clause 2?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think we must take the position that the question on how many days in the year racing shall be permitted has already been decided. This Amendment, which says that no dog race shall take place in public except on the appointed days, does not appear to be contrary to anything that has been decided. The further provision in the Amendment is that so many races may be run on one day in public, and it then goes on to define what is meant by "in public," as against races in private. So far as I can see there is nothing in the Amendment inconsistent with anything already decided.

§ Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY
I should like to urge very strongly that there should not be more than 12 races run on any one day on any track. If you allow the management to run any number of dog races a day you are going to destroy the point that the Bill is trying to make.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
I think the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that it is very difficult to grasp the implication of the manuscript Amendment. I do not complain that a manuscript Amendment is brought forward, but I would point out that there would have been an opportunity on the Report stage, when we might have had ample time to examine the Amendment and see what it does imply. At first glance it seems to me to be a very ingenious method of negotiating the appointed 104 days. The hon. and gallant Member is very modest in his request. He only wants to run one and a-half times the number of races that he now runs. He suggests a maximum of 12 races per day. He would be able to say 771 any day that he liked. He would be able to say: "We will have six races and we will have a matinee," if that suited the proprietors of the track. He invites the Committee to give the greyhound people the right to run 12 races on one day. There is the real implication of the tote. Give the owners of the tracks the tote and the number of races that they like and they will make it pay.

§ Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY
Today we could run 100 races per day. There is nothing to stop it in the Bill.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
The track owners could run 100 races a day at the present time if they like, but they have not the tote and they could not make profit out of the tote, whether they run 100 or 150 races a day, but if the Bill becomes law and there is no interpretation of what one day means it will be a different matter. It is essential that there should be an interpretation of what a day means. If the Home Secretary has not already made up his mind on that matter he will have to make it up and declare what one day exactly means. If he cannot make up his mind somebody must make it up for him, and the hon. and gallant Member would seem to be trying to do that. He cannot, however, make up my mind to 12 races per day being permitted. If the Home Secretary is determined to have this Bill and to limit the number of days when racing or betting shall take place to 104 days then I cannot conceive why he or anybody else should permit 12 races per day: which would mean that on any day that the company desired they could have a matinee and split the 12 into two sixes. By that means they would get two payments for admission, two lots of charges for the bookmakers and 12 times betting on the tote.
On Bank Holidays the hon. and gallant Member is not satisfied with one matinee but he wants two. If I owned a track or had any financial interest in the sport, if it can be dignified by the name of sport, I would ask for 24, 48, or 72 races, or whatever I thought the Home Secretary was going to give. The suggestion is that there shall be 24 races on Bank Holidays. To-day the average number of races on dog tracks is only eight, so that there could be three times eight races on a Bank Holiday. There could be a race at 10.30, another after lunch, and 772 another in the evening. That is what we call in Yorkshire making arrangements for shift work, and every shift will have a turn. The hon. and gallant Member has served one purpose. He has at least confronted the Home Secretary with a problem that he now must face. What is a day? It has been decided that there shall be 104 days, according to Clause 1. We should like to know whether a day means that they can have a race in the morning, another in the afternoon and another in the evening, or whether a day means that only one meeting can be held on one day. While I oppose the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member I welcome it because it will tend to make the Home Secretary face up to the question of What is a day.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON
I suppose the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has got it into his head that no good at all can come from anybody who has anything to do with dog racing. The proposition that has been made is, I admit, rather difficult to follow in manuscript form but it does introduce regulations of a restrictive type which I should have thought the hon. Member would have accepted. If he has any ground for attack certainly it is not against my hon. and gallant Friend but against the Government. Repeatedly we have tried to point out the weaknesses of the Bill, and one great weakness was that although you had a day there was no limit or definition of it. You could run three matinees. If the hon. and gallant Member puts in the number twelve it is not for the hon. Member to blame him—it is a restriction. If he wants seven races the hon. Member must move it as an Amendment, and must not blame the hon. and gallant Gentleman for trying to restrict the number of races.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) was a member of the Committee and will know that questions were put as to what was meant by one day's racing. We had no reply, but the Home Secretary will have to make up his mind as to what he really means and intends by "a day." I did not blame the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley). I said that he was serving a useful purpose by getting a reply from the Home Secretary.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON
I am glad the hon. Member has explained in that way, because his speech seemed to be an attack on the hon. and gallant Member. I agree that it is high time we had a definition of what is meant by "a day," and if the hon. Member has not the initiative to put an Amendment down I do not think he should blame the hon. and gallant Member. In regard to the second part of the Amendment, it seems to me that we are closing an avenue which might otherwise be easily exploited for betting against the spirit of the Bill. If race meetings are held on days which are not betting days there are ingenious devices by means of credit betting, which might easily be introduced, which should and ought to be avoided. I think that the hon. and gallant Member has suggested a way of stopping the introduction of illegitimate betting on dog race courses. Perhaps the Government cannot accept the Amendment now but there are germs of sanity in it which I think should be incorporated in the Bill at a later stage.

§ Mr. ISAAC FOOT
I hope we shall have some guidance on this point, especially for those who have no experience of dog racing. I rely on such information as I can get. The hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley) says that it is possible under the Bill to have 100 races in a day. Can we have some guidance as to the number of races which are at present run? I have no knowledge whatever. Can we have some information as to how long a track is open, and the number of races generally run? Am I to understand that under the present conditions you can have a dog track carrying on its operations and that people representing the poorer part of the community can go in and have eight, 10 or 12 races run, offering them several temptations for the spending of their small earnings? If that be so, the danger which we are dealing with in the Bill is great.
I cannot make up my mind on the Amendment without some knowledge of existing conditions. I can support the Amendment if it is essentially a restriction. If we can have 20 or 25 races per day I should prefer to see 12. I would like to see the tail of the dog cut off very close behind the ear. The smaller the 774 number of races the better I shall be satisfied. What is the present experience as to the opening of dog tracks? The hon. and gallant Member said that under the Bill you can open your dog track early in the morning and carry on until midnight. What is the present experience? Are tracks generally open only in the evening or for the larger part of the day? If the Amendment is a restriction on what is now happening I shall support it, but I cannot make up my mind owing to my ignorance of existing conditions and I hope that the Home Secretary can enlighten us as to the length of the existing day and the number of races which are normally run under present circumstances.

§ Sir A. BUTT
Upstairs in Committee I drew the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that "a day" might mean a large number of meetings, and the Home Secretary then told me that he would give the matter his fullest consideration. I have handed in an Amendment in the shape of a new Clause—I thought it was much fairer than moving it as a manuscript Amendment—defining what is meant, and I have suggested that it should be limited to a maximum of eight races and should not last more than four hours. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley) is a little more ingenious because in 12 hours one might conceivably have two meetings, whereas it would not be easy to have two meetings with a maximum of eight hours. I suggest that we should reject the Amendment and consider later the new Clause which I have handed in, which will be on the Paper to-morrow, which limits a meeting to a maximum of eight races with a maximum duration of four hours, and that on the four exceptional holidays they may double the number of hours and double the number of races.

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment at this stage, particularly as the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt) has put down an Amendment which deals with the latter part of the manuscript Amendment, which in Committee I promised to consider. It would be for the convenience of the Committee that we should have that Amendment before us 775 before we come to any decision. With regard to the first part of the Amendment— that no dog races shall be run on any other than the appointed days fixed in pursuance of this part of the Act "— I confess that I have grave doubt as to whether the Committee should interfere in this matter; it should be under the control of the industry itself. I have promised to look carefully at the problem of the "day," and I think we can more properly consider that question when the new Clause is before us. In those circumstances, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw his Amendment.

§ Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY
I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment. May I point out that on certain tracks 24 races are held now every day of the week, and in some cases 36 races? It is to avoid that that I put forward the Amendment, but in view of the desire of the Home Secretary I am quite prepared to withdraw it.

§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON
I beg to move, in page 6, line 46, at the end, to add: (4) Any person aggrieved by the grant or by the refusal to grant a licence in respect of any track for which a licence is in force at the date of this application may appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Quarter Sessions Act, 1849, to the next practicable court of quarter sessions having jurisdiction in the county borough or place in which the track is situate and held, not less than twenty-one clear days after notice of the refusal is given to him by the licensing authority. In any case arising under this Sub-section the notice of appeal shall be given to the licensing authority and to the clerk of the peace, and in the case of an appeal in respect of the grant of a licence to the person to whom the licence has been granted. Where the licensing authority has refused to grant a licence as aforesaid then until the time within which notice of an appeal under this Sub-section may be given has expired and, if such notice is duly given, until the determination of the appeal the licence shall be deemed to continue in force, and if the court of quarter sessions confirm the decision of the licensing authority the court may, if they think fit, order that the licence shall continue in force for a further period not exceeding two months from the date of the order. This is the appeal Clause and the Amendment is one which does not require 776 a long debate. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has made up his mind "Yes" or "No" for it. The reasons for it are pretty simple, because the Bill shows a certain lack of consistency in framing. It will be noticed that in Clause 15 provision is made for the holder of a track licence to appeal to quarter sessions against the revocation of the licence; but no provision is made at all in the Bill for appeal against a refusal to grant a licence or a refusal to renew a licence. If there is an appeal for the one there certainly should be an appeal for the other. There is this circumstance in the Bill to be considered: In Clause 6, where so many reasons which we have been discussing have been given for the refusal by a local authority to grant a licence, it may well be said that some of those reasons are not reasons of actual fact but of opinion. Consequently there should be an appeal against them. Such considerations as traffic and that sort of thing might be used indeed by prejudiced local authorities against dog racing, qua dog racing, to defeat the granting of a licence. Consequently I have moved an appeal provision here. I hope that those who are against dog racing will notice that the Amendment admits an appeal by any person or persons who may be aggrieved by the granting of a licence.

§ Mr. KNIGHT
I suggest that the Committee should make the practice laid down in this Bill conform with the usual practice. The authority here is authorised to issue a licence for a public purpose and in such cases it is usual to enable the decision of an authority to be reviewed. The closest analogy I can think of is the case of Brewster Sessions They have authority to issue a licence or for good reasons to refuse to issue a licence. The person aggrieved has a right to appeal to quarter sessions against that decision. There was a Statute passed some years ago, I think it was the Administration of Justice Act of 1925, which enabled any person aggrieved by the refusal of justices to appeal to quarter sessions. I suggest with great respect that it is desirable, where a function of this sort, involving the issue of a licence, is concerned, the person against whom an order is made should have the right to get the matter reviewed at quarter sessions. Indeed the Government have recognised the 777 rightness of that in Sub-section (2) of Clause 15, where provision is made for appeal in the case of revocation of a licence.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I am not sure that my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken realises that this Amendment does not apply to an issue of a licence in the first instance. Therefore the analogy he gave does not in any way affect this Amendment. It generally applies to a case where the licence comes to be reviewed.

Captain A. EVANS
If the learned Solicitor-General will read the first line of the Amendment he will see the words: Any person aggrieved by the grant or by the refusal to grant a licence"—

§ The SOLICITOR- GENERAL
The hon. and gallant Member should go on a little further: in respect of any track for which a licence is in force at the date of this application. I am taking the explanation given by the Mover of the Amendment, who, I am sure, is a good authority on what his Amendment means. He said it covered only cases where a man asked for renewal of a licence.

Captain EVANS
Of course we appreciate the fact that every track is automatically licensed for five years. Therefore it will come within the category of a track applying for renewal of a licence. But in fact it would be a first application.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I think I was quite right. The Amendment does not apply to the ordinary case of a man who comes and applies for his licence for the first time.

§ Mr. KNIGHT
I thought the Mover of the Amendment was making provision for such a case. If his Amendment does not do that, it should be enlarged.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
My hon. and learned Friend should put down an Amendment of his own. I am dealing with the Amendment on the Paper. The Mover of the Amendment referred to the distinction between opinion and fact, which really is our reason for asking the Committee to reject the Amendment, in 778 spite of the fact that we have provided for an appeal to quarter sessions in Clause 15. If the Committee will look they will see the different classes of matter raised by Clause 6 and Clause 15. Under Clause 6, when the council or the standing joint committee come to consider whether they shall grant a licence, they have to consider its effect on the health of persons and on other matters set out under Sub-section (1), such as the amenities of the neighbourhood and traffic considerations. Those are all really matters of opinion, upon which the county council, acting administratively with their experts and their knowledge, are entitled to arrive at a conclusion. It would not be appropriate to give an appeal from the decision of opinion by an administrative body of that kind to a judicial body like quarter sessions. In Clause 15 the matters set out are such matters as whether a track is conducted in a disorderly manner, whether there has been a substantial increase in the number of seats and so forth. They are matters of fact. The Clause, therefore, provides an appeal to quarter sessions.

§ Mr. KNIGHT
Would the Solicitor-General accept, on behalf of the Government, the principle that where a person is aggrieved by the decision of an authority on any ground there should be some right of appeal against the decision?

Captain EVANS
I am sure the Committee is disappointed at and certainly not convinced by the reply of the Solicitor-General. He tells us that under Clause 15 if the licence is revoked for any one of these reasons such as bad conduct or non-compliance with certain specified conditions, the track owners would have the right of appeal as set out in Clause 15. Assume for the sake of argument that, although no specific charges have been made against the conduct of a track, the council or the local licensing authority for one reason or another which they have not to specify—

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
If my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me I would refer him to Clause 6, Sub-section (3): Where the licensing authority refuse an application for the grant of a licence, they shall send to the applicant by post a written statement of the grounds of their refusal.

Captain EVANS
I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend. But even if they send such a statement, what is the position? One can assume that A large amount of money has been invested in the track. Suppose the track owners do not share the view expressed in, the written communication. Surely in normal circumstances as applied to any other business when a difference of opinion arose on a legal matter, there would be A right of appeal, before the whole of the investment became paralysed or was lost to the shareholders by such a, decision. As my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment has pointed out, it is not unreasonable to suggest that prejudice might enter into a decision of this kind. On an earlier Amendment it was suggested that it would not be difficult for anybody who wanted to take a prejudiced view on certain points, to find grounds specifically laid down in Clause 6 and to find a convenient way of arriving at a certain opinion. I think my hon. and learned Friend ought to produce a better reason to show why there should be no right of appeal in a case where a track has been properly conducted for a period of years and there has been no complaint against it, but where an application for revocation has been granted for a reason to be specified in writing. If my hon. And learned Friend does not find it possible to accept this Amendment at this stage, may I appeal to him to review the matter between now and the Report stage, bearing in mind that the words of this Amendment are the same as the words in Clause 15? I think if he does review the matter he will find that there is some justice in our case.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I was one of nine who, earlier, voted for a proposal that this whole matter should be dealt with judicially and not administratively. The Solicitor-General has underlined the fact that an application for consideration of a licence has to be dealt with on purely administrative grounds. Every Member of Parliament is aware of a great many things which are dealt with administratively. There are questions of old age pensions, and unemployment benefit about which our constituents write to us from time to time. These matters are dealt with administratively, sometimes by a local committee, sometimes by an officer 780 of the Ministry, but in effect there is an appeal. The appeal in the first place is to us, the elected representatives of the people, and we approach the Minister if we think a man has been unfairly treated, and we get reconsideration right at the top. Now, apparently, the view is that this is purely an administrative matter in the first place, and that there is no appeal of any kind whatever. It seems to me All wrong that anybody should be in a position to take a final decision on a matter of this kind without any appeal. That seems to me entirely against what I call fair play.
Now the Solicitor-General, who is a lawyer, and I am only an engineer and do not understand these things quite so well, refers us to Clause 15 and says, "You will see there that we provide for an appeal, because there we are dealing with matters of fact to be established", and the rest of it, but Clause 15 deals only with revocation. If a licence has run for its initial period, and the holder comes along for renewal, they may decline to grant a renewal, and there is no right of appeal. If, on the other hand, a track has behaved sufficiently badly that it is revoked, the holder of the licence gets an appeal. In other words, you have only to be a little disorderly, and you get a right of appeal; if you behave quite decently, this Bill gives you no appeal at all. That seems to me a perfectly ridiculous attitude to take up. Surely there ought to be somebody, for the reasons we advanced when we were dealing with an earlier Amendment, in an independent position, outside the local people, to see if these people have had a square deal or not.
I do not know whether or not these are the right words, but if the Government accept the Amendment, a Government draftsman will put it into words that we shall not understand, but the courts will. I really appeal to the Solicitor-General and the Home Secretary to give some reconsideration to this question, so that a. man should not be deprived of all his rights because of some matter of local prejudice or because certain members of a town council do not like the gentlemen promoting a track, or because of any number of reasons, none of which are adequate. I think there ought to be a fair and square deal, and 781 I am certain that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) will not disagree with me on this.

§ Mr. ISAAC FOOT
I hope the learned Solicitor-General will make it clear what is the difference between the procedure he is now suggesting and that in relation to licensed premises. For the latter a man may go to considerable expense in anticipation of getting a licence. He applies then for his licence at the licensing sessions, and although he has a, very strong case, as he thinks, and may have incurred substantial expense, he can have his application refused, and if the refusal is made, that finishes it.

HON. MEMBERS
No!

§ Mr. PIKE
He has an appeal to brewster sessions.

§ Mr. FOOT
He has not. Let me take the situation. I know there are learned counsel against me on the other side, but—

§ Mr. KNIGHT
There is a, special sitting of quarter sessions to deal with appeals from licensing sessions.

§ Mr. FOOT
I will tell the learned counsel the law. If I apply for a licence in the first instance, having put up my premises and incurred, it may be, substantial expenditure in anticipation of the application, I go then to the licensing justices. Any member of the public can appear and oppose, without giving me any notice whatsoever, and if upon my application being heard the licensing bench refuses my application, I have no remedy.[Interruption.] I submit that in that instance I have no remedy.

§ Mr. KNIGHT
But surely—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think we had better drop this debate on the licensing laws. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to raise the matter and ask a question, as an analogy, but not to debate it.

§ Mr. FOOT
But assuming that I am right, in the event of my holding a licence and that licence being withdrawn, certainly then have the right of appeal want to ask what is the difference between the practice that is now suggested and that practice with which we are very well acquainted in the ordinary 782 course of law. I understand that, if I apply for the granting of a dog track licence, I can be refused by the local authorities, and that is an end of my application, but if I have been the holder of a licence, and that licence is withdrawn, then I have, under Clause 15, a right of appeal.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
There is the other case, where they decline to renew—a different thing from cancellation.

§ Mr. FOOT
I understand that is the third class. That is different from the ordinary licensing of intoxicating liquor. The present case is that of a dog track which, having been in existence for some time, makes an application for the first grant. That is different from having it withdrawn. If you take the existing tracks, there will be a certain period before they make their applications. They are taken, I suppose, as if it were a first grant, giving to the local authority complete power in the matter. I would like some guidance from the Solicitor-General as to how far the practice which it is proposed to set up under this Bill is in correspondence with the practice that obtains and has obtained for very many years in the administration of the licensing law.

§ Mr. GOLDIE
I intervene very rarely in debate, but may I with respect to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) suggest that, in order to settle his contests with the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), he should apply for a moneylender's licence and not for one in the licensing trade. What the hon. and gallant Member is moving in this Amendment is identical with the procedure under the Moneylenders Act. Sitting as a deputy-recorder, I have tried a case which, I think I am right in saying, was against the refusal of the justices to renew a moneylender's licence. It seems to me that we get a far closer analogy if we look at the Moneylenders Act. In cases of difficulty an appeal can be made on the broadest possible grounds, either to the county quarter sessions or to the recorder, and it seems to me we should not be going very far wrong, although I have an open mind in the matter and know next to nothing about greyhound racing, if the grounds of 783 appeal were left very open and general. Possibly, then, the Amendment could be accepted.

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
Perhaps a layman may have a word on this complicated issue. I will take up the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) first. The local authority does not grant a licence for money lending, and that destroys the argument he has put forward. I think there is a ease in favour of the Government's point of view against the Amendment, and it is a very simple and common-sense one. Suppose a local authority felt it should not grant a licence to establish a track in a district in which it knows a track would be offensive to the neighbourhood, It would be a terrible state of affairs if quarter sessions, made up of people who are not living in the neighbourhood, had the power to override the decision of the local authority. Hon. Members of all parties, representing townships as they all do, would feel that the towns they represented would not get fair play if an appeal were made in that way. I do not like the provisions of Clause 15, but we arc not discussing that. I have sat on a local authority for 10 years. I was a member of Manchester City Council, which was governed by a Tory caucus and which, by the way, is beginning to dwindle now; but I would trust that great corporation to decide for the people living in Manchester whether a dog track should be allowed within its territory or not. I think we must trust the local authority in a case of this kind.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) has asked me to answer a question, and I will do so quite shortly, though it will not be saying much more than what I have already said. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Goldie) put forward the case of a moneylender's licence. I will not go into that instance in detail, but the analogy breaks down at the outset, because there the appeal is from justices to quarter sessions, from one body of judicial people to another. In the case of licensing the work has been entrusted by this House at both stages to judicial persons—to magistrates and then to quarter sessions. Here the House has 784 decided that the question whether licences shall be granted or renewed on the lines laid down by this Measure shall be a matter to be decided by the county council, and the county council in deciding that matter of administrative procedure are entitled, as an administrative department, to take into account matters which they might not be entitled to consider according to the strict rules of legal procedure. We see the greatest possible difficulty in giving an appeal from that administrative body on what is a matter of opinion to a judicial body such as quarter sessions, where there are different instruments, different methods, and so on. Clause 15 is dealing, really, with quite a different matter. In that case there is a definite decision to revoke, and there are two parties, the person whose licence is revoked and the revoking council, and that we feel is a matter to be sent to quarter sessions. We feel that not only is there an objection to introducing quarter sessions in a matter which the House has decided shall be dealt with by a county council, but there is a great, if not overwhelming, procedure difficulty in making this an appeal to quarter sessions.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
The hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt with the case of an application for a new licence and the revocation of a licence, which is the cancellation of a licence during its currency, but he has not said one word about the application for a continuance of an existing licence.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I apologise, but I pointed out in the first sentence of the first speech I made that as the Amendment dealt only with the case of renewals that was the only thing I was going to speak about, and every single word I said since has been dealing only with renewals.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
To save time on Report stage, would the hon. and learned Gentleman indicate now what his answer would be if I put down an Amendment on this point?

§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON
I agree that there would be a great deal of substance in the argument of the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench if he had been dealing only with an application for a licence, but this Amendment only comes 785 into operation after five years, after a track has been in operation for five years and an application is made for its licence to be renewed, and it seems a little hard that every track in England should be subjected to a trial period of five years not knowing what the local council is going to do at the end of five years. That is the position we are in. If we are aspiring to have well-regulated, well-developed, and well-conducted dog tracks, this type of appeal will not conduce to that end, because nobody is going to invest money on the development of a track or see that it is run as it should be if he does not know whether, at the end, he may not be opposed by a purely partisan local authority instead of having the case Judged on its merits. I do not think I can withdraw the Amendment.