Lords Sitting of 27 March 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
MILFORD HAVEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a.
LIVERPOOL CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a.

CHESTER WATER BILL.
Read 2a.
HAVERFORDWEST ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
IPSWICH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
WHITBY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1930.
EXMOUTH ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
HYTHE (HANTS) ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1930.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name upon the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RESERVOIRS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): My Lords, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if, in moving that this Report be now received, I make a general statement on the Amendments on the Paper in my name and special reference to certain matters which are not dealt with in these Amendments. I wish first to explain why there is no reference to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in connection with small reservoirs, to which I promised to give my attention. The reason for that is that on more careful study of the Bill it seems to me that there is no necessity for any addition in respect of small reservoirs. There is an expression in one clause of the Bill which applies to reservoirs in general, and that is in Clause 7, and a small reservoir, or reservoir which is not large, is defined by Clause 10 as a reservoir of lees than 5,000,000 gallons. I think the noble Marquess and Lord Bridgeman were a little troubled as to the position of these reservoirs which are not large reservoirs. The Bill does not affect that category of reservoirs at all, except in Clause 7.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is the effect of that clause?
LORD THONISON: The effect of Clause 7 is that the owners or undertakers are liable to pay for damage in case such damage is done by an escape of water from their reservoirs. The case of a reservoir which has already been constructed is not dealt with at all in the Bill—that is, reservoirs of this character. The owner or undertaker of such a reservoir is exposed to any penalties to which he was exposed when he put up the reservoir. If he put it up under a statutory authority, he might be called upon to pay damages to the victims if negligence is proved, or it might depend upon the character of the Private Act, and he might have to pay for nuisance. If he is not under a statutory authority he might be exposed to penalties arising under the ordinary law. Reservoirs constructed in future, of that character, under a statutory authority, come under the
1058
provisions of this Bill only in so far as damages are incurred in case of an accident.
Lord Bridgeman said he did not know what 5,000,000 gallons looked like, and he wanted to have some idea. I have had some calculations made. This Chamber, if filled with water, would contain a quarter of 5,000,000 gallons. The Haymarket, if twelve feet deep with water, would contain about 5,000,000 gallons. Five million gallons take up 800,000 cubic feet—200 feet by 200 feet by 20 feet, we will say—but of course if you have a lesser depth, say five feet, then you would have a sheet of water 800 feet long, 200 feet broad and five feet deep. There is a further safeguard for the owners of sheets of ornamental water who may turn them to practical use for electric lighting or other purposes. The water affected is only water above the natural level of the ground. Indeed, this Bill safeguards the private owner or the factory with a reservoir very considerably. In the original drafting of the Bill 1,000,000 gallons was the lower limit of size of a large reservoir, but it was finally raised to 5,000,000 gallons after consultation with numerous authorities. I hope that I have disposed of the point raised with regard to small reservoirs. In fact, what are small reservoirs under this Bill are really quite large.
I now pass to the various points raised in the Amendments which will be moved by myself, and I think a few words of explanation may save time. The first four Amendments are purely consequential and drafting in relation to a substantial Amendment to Clause 2 in which a new subsection (5) is proposed, and I hope they meet the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about joint inspection. The later Amendments are also consequential or drafting. The main point is, I trust, met in the Amendment to Clause 2 (5), and if there is any point to be raised by the noble Viscount on that, we can deal with it in the debate on that particular Amendment. I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Thomson.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I arm very grateful to the Government for having put in this provision associating a firm's own inspector with the outside in-

1059
spector, and I believe it will lead to a very much smoother working of the Bill. As regards the smaller reservoirs, I, like the noble Lord himself, have made a more careful study of the Bill, and have come to the conclusion that the apprehensions that I had entertained were not altogether substantial.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Periodical inspection of large reservoirs]:
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, the first four Amendments are purely drafting, and are consequential on the proposed new subsection (5) in Clause 2. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 33, after ("cause") insert ("a periodical inspection, and a report of the result thereof, to be made in accordance with the provisions of this section in respect of")
Page 3, line 35, leave out from ("stored") to the end of subsection (1)
Page 4, line 18, leave out from ("if") to ("that") in line 19, and insert ("the report of the result of any inspection made under this section contains a recommendation")
Page 4, line 29, leave out from ("cause") to the first ("as") in line 30, and insert ("an inspection of the reservoir, and a report of the result thereof, to be made").—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:—
"(5) Every inspection and report required under this section shall be made by an independent qualified civil engineer appointed for the purpose by the undertakers:
Provided that, where there is in the permanent service of the undertakers a qualified civil engineer, the undertakers may appoint that engineer to make any such inspection together with the independent engineer, and, in that event the said two engineers shall jointly make the inspection and the report of the result thereof required by this section, so however that if the engineers disagree as to the report which should be made, the independent engineer alone shall make the report."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the proviso which we propose to insert to meet the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I do not know whether it is worth while taking up your Lordships' time in explaining
1060
it. The noble Viscount has expressed his satisfaction. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, at end insert the said new subsection (5).—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD THOMSON: The remaining Amendments are again consequential drafting Amendments, with the exception of the last two on the Amendment Paper. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("inspecting engineer") and insert ("independent engineer to make an inspection under this section")
Page 4, line 37, after ("with") insert ("the record required to be kept by them under this Act and")
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("inspecting") and insert ("independent")
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("made under this section") and insert ("of the result of an inspection made under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the inspection and shall be in the prescribed form and")
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("states that any measures are necessary") and insert ("contains a recommendation that any measures should be taken")
Page 5, line 11, leave out from ("any") to ("as") in line 12, and insert ("recommendation contained in a report made under this section, being a recommendation")
Page 5, line 15, leave out from ("may") to ("request") in line 16, and insert ("in accordance with rules made under this section").—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, the last two Amendments on the Paper are not consequential on the provision of a private joint inspection, but they are drafting Amendments to the Bill as it stands. They go together, and their effect is simply to transfer from subsection (7) to subsection (8) the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe the time and manner for applying for the appointment of a referee. They involve no extension of the powers of the Secretary of State. They are purely to improve the style and drafting of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 25, leave out from the second ("which") to ("under") in line 26, and insert ("a request for the appointment of a referee").—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [The keeping of records]:
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 4 and 5.—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BOOKMAKERS' CIRCULARS.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the practice of certain bookmakers of circularising persons to enter into betting transactions and offering as an inducement to open credit accounts, and to ask whether such action is legal as being an attempt to induce wagering contracts; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of preventing the issue of such circulars and making applicable the law relating to circulars by moneylenders.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in referring to the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I can assure your Lordships I shall not take up your time in dealing with the many anomolies, hypocrisies and inconsistencies of our present betting system. The object I have in view is comparatively a very small one. I do not suppose anybody in this House, or out of it, understands the reasons for the differences that exist as regards the various branches of the law in relation to wagering contracts and betting contracts. Some three or four years ago I brought before this House proposals for the amendment of the Moneylenders Act of 1900, and among other matters that I mentioned to your Lordships was the persistent way in which moneylenders by circulars tried to induce young people, particularly young officers, civil, naval and military, to enter into transactions with them. A great deal of matter was placed before the House at that time to show that a considerable amount of that business was carried on with a view to putting these foolish and inexperienced young people into funds for the purpose of carrying out betting transactions. After the Moneylenders Bill had passed your Lordships' House on three occasions, I think it was, it became law, having been greatly changed, so as to make it snore anemic and less effective, by the action of certain members of another place.
But both Houses were certainly emphatic that one of the evils that ought to be dealt with was this question of circulars and advertisements. Section 5 (1) of the amending Act of 1927 says—
"No person shall knowingly send or deliver or cause to be sent or delivered to any person except in response to his written request any circular or other document advertising the name, address or telephone number of a moneylender, or containing an invitation—

(a) to borrow money from a moneylender;

(b) to enter into arty transaction involving the borrowing of money from a moneylender;

(c) to apply to any place with a view to obtaining information or advice as to borrowing any money from a moneylender."

There is also a provision in the Act for preventing touting on behalf of moneylenders. That is now the law. I am not here to moralise or denounce bookmakers generally or their business; I know nothing about them. I do not think I ever had a bet on a horse-race in my life, except once. Then I got even money and I won, so I have no real grievance, especially as the bookmaker paid me. That was the only time was ever at the Derby, many years ago. I am not such a fool as to enter into speculations of that kind.
This question of sending circulars to inexperienced people, if not coming within the actual law as laid down by the Moneylenders Act of 1927, certainly comes within the spirit of it. I can see no more reason for preventing the one than the other. In fact this system of trying to get people to deal with them seems to me to be even more attractive than the moneylenders' system. I hold in my hand a circular. I shall not mention the names of firms because it would be advertising them and I should be probably abusing them without their having an opportunity of being heard, which is what lawyers describe as against natural justice. Here is a circular which sets out the name and address of a firm and its nine telephone numbers. Then there is a list of the directors, and the thing is made specially attractive by the statement that they are members of the Turf Guardian Society. Your Lordships can see how attractive that would be to an inexperienced person, who might say: "After all, I am on the right lay now

1063
because they are members of the Turf Guardian Society. That is good enough for me anyway."
This is the circular that has come particularly to my notice:—
"Sir,
Not having yet heard from you in reply to our letters suggesting the opening of a credit account, we shall be glad to hear whether there is any point on which we can enlighten you with a view to our doing business.
Awaiting the favour of a reply,
We remain,
Faithfully yours"
So-and-so and so-and-so. Your Lordships will see that what that circular means is that there is no need to go to a moneylender. "We will lend the money by opening a credit account." Could there be anything more pernicious than for an inexperienced person to get into the hands of firms of this kind? I know that only too well, having regard to my long professional life and my experience of people who from time to time have come and discussed matters with me when they have found themselves in great difficulties. What is the difference between circularising to come and borrow, and circularising to come and bet, saying: "We will supply the money by opening a credit account"? I do not see any difference at all. I read in the newspapers from time to time of people being arrested in the streets, or summoned, for passing betting slips, whatever they are. I do not know, but they are something that people pass from one to the other. I suppose they are on a very small scale, but, apparently, under the by-laws of the various local bodies who govern various districts they can be prevented. But these great people who are members of the Turf Guardian Society, and can afford extra good notepaper and envelopes and the full 1½d. stamp, can go on as far as they like.
That is not the only analogy between this system and moneylending. These circulars are sent to young officers, civil, naval and military, addressed, very often, to the houses of their fathers, and of course what is at the back of it is: "We will open a credit. We know very well that your father will pay. He will not let you go out of the Army or the Navy. He is not likely to let you down." That this is at the back of it a great deal of evidence was given when the original
1064
Moneylenders Act was passed. As I am not now a Judge and have not had to deal with these cases for some time, I do not know whether such a letter as this is legal. Whether to induce a person to enter into these wagering contracts by offering him credit is legal or not, I do not know. I know that great distinctions are drawn between what is legal, what is illegal and what is void.
I respectfully suggest to this House that, having taken up the matter for the protection of inexperienced people in relation to moneylenders, there is no reason that can be suggested why such letters as I have read should not be brought under the same law as moneylenders' circulars. Without in any wise attacking or assailing the morality or the existence of the present betting system, which I know people say encourages horse-racing and horse-breeding, I think this one very simple protection for the inexperienced youth of our country might very well be adopted. I placed my Question on the Paper really in the hope that it might be considered in order at all events that by this one small restriction, which is more in accordance with the by-laws which prevent street and other betting in various places, we might at least try to protect these inexperienced persons from the persistent lure of such circulars.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I think we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Carson, for bringing this matter to the notice of the House, and I hope he will be satisfied with the answer which I can give him. I should like, in the first instance, to say this. Although what is legal or illegal in betting may be a matter of difficulty, owing to a multiplicity of Statutes, there is no illegality in ordinary credit betting apart from the question of minors. Therefore, though I should not like to speak with any great legal certainty on a matter of this kind, I think the subject to which the noble Lord calls attention, the circularisation of persons to induce them to enter into betting transactions, that is, credit betting, is not, as the law stands now, illegal. If the circulars referred to what in itself was illegal betting—and a good deal of betting is illegal—then they would be themselves illegal, but as the matter now

1065
stands as far as I have made myself familiar with the law, and I have tried to do so, I do not think the circularisation in connection with credit betting is illegal at the present moment unless the question of minors comes in. If the betting were illegal, of course a different consideration would arise.
That being so, I sympathise, and the Government sympathise, with the desire of the noble Lord that circularisation of this kind should be stopped, if it can be stopped, and I can say on their behalf, and most strongly on my own behalf, that I think betting is a source of grave immorality in many directions, and particularly in the direction to which the noble Lord has referred. I may say that His Majesty's Government will certainly consider the advisability of preventing the issue of such circulars—that is, circulars which have reference to credit betting which is not illegal—and making applicable the law relating to circulars by moneylenders. Whether the law relating to circulars by moneylenders would in its present terms be exactly applicable to the case the noble Lord has in mind, I am not prepared to say, but that would be a matter for subsequent consideration.
The noble Lord has reminded the House of the attitude he took up on the question of moneylending and I should like to refer to that. There was a Bill introduced into this House for which he and the noble Lord, Lord Darling, were particularly responsible. That Bill passed the Second Reading, and then I think it was sent to a Select Committee of both Houses, where the matter was considered with the greatest care under the Chairmanship of Lord Darling. Evidence was brought before that Committee which raised the whole matter and stated all the difficulties. After the proposed Bill had been reformed by the Select Committee of both Houses, it went to the Home Office, which deals with questions of this kind. I had rather hoped to see the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, in his place, for he represented the Home Office at that time, when there was considerable discussion in this House, but I do not think he is here this afternoon. The Bill as it came from the Select Committee of the two Houses was in turn revised and put into a form which the Home Office thought was right. I do
1066
not say that all the Home Office conditions were accepted, but some were, and in the result there was what I may call an agreed Bill, which, after having been discussed in a most thorough manner, passed both Houses and became law.
Loan CARSON: May I remind the noble Lord that he is not quite accurate? As he said, I had a great deal to do with that Bill. The Select Committee reported, the Bill as passed by the Select Committee was considered by this House, and, as the noble Lord said, most of the matters put forward by the Home Office were accepted. It then went to the House of Commons, but it was not passed. It was brought in again the following year. Then, in the House of Commons, another and an entirely different Bill was brought in. A number of provisions were inserted in the House of Commons which took away a great deal from the original Bill as it was considered in this House, and the Bill as eventually passed had very little to do with the first Bill of the Select Committee.
LORD PARMOOR: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I have not had time to look into all these details, but what he has told us shows the great care with which the matter was considered before there was legislation in this Rouse. There was consideration in the Select Committee and by the Home Office, then there was another Bill introduced in the House of Commons, and ultimately the legislation was passed dealing with moneylenders to which the noble Lord has referred. That is the Bill I think on which he relies when he speaks about the advisability of preventing the issue of such circulars and making applicable to bookmakers the law relating to circulars by moneylenders. The law relating to circulars by moneylenders is contained in the Bill as it ultimately passed after the greatest care had been given to it, reinforced, if I may say so, by the facts which the noble Lord has added to the statement which I made.
What I want to say is this. If the noble Lord would introduce a Bill for discussion in this House, the Home Office would do all that it could—I will not say to accept the terms, but to work with the noble Lord in order to secure the passing into law of a Bill of this character. I think, however, the first

1067
step would be that the noble Lord should himself put down in a concrete form—he will appreciate this—what it is exactly that he desires to alter in the existing law. No one, of course, could do that more adequately than the noble Lord, Lord Carson. I can only say, on behalf of the Home Office at the present time, that when we see the terms of that Bill, unless it is something very different from what we appreciate to be the view of the noble Lord, he would have our assistance both as regards framing the Bill and also in its subsequent stages. That does not mean that we would undertake to attempt to pass a Bill of that character into law in the present Session. He would not expect that. But it would not be dropped, and if the noble Lord could bring the matter forward in this Session and go through some of the steps which I have suggested, I am perfectly sure he would find that the Home Office are willing to help him, and that they realise, as he does, many of the evils that result from this credit betting.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I do not think I could expect anything more sympathetic. It is quite fair to say that I ought to put my proposals in concrete form in the shape of a Bill, which I shall certainly be prepared to do. Then, if they meet with the approval of the Home Office, or, subject to alteration, meet with the approval of the Home Office, we may hope that something can be done in a matter which, I think, is of considerable public importance.

A FRIDAY SITTING.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before the House adjourns I have to say that the House will meet at 11.45 to-morrow and that a Motion will be made to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX in reference to the Consolidated Fund Bill. At 12 o'clock there will be a Royal Commission, for which provision has been made.
House adjourned at five o'clock.