Lords Sitting of 12 June 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
PALESTINE LOAN BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
WANTAGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CORBY (NORTHANTS) AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 3ª, and passed.
DURHAM COUNTY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTH WESTERN SUBURBAN WATER BILL.
Read, 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of Tuesday last reported by the Earl of Cromer as follows:
"I have received your Address recommending Sir Edward Hall Alderson, K.C.B., K.B.E., late Clerk of the Parliaments, to my Royal Grace and Bounty and I will give directions accordingly."

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BURNHAM AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERRIARD AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHEPPEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Restriction of totalisator betting and other pari mutuel betting.
3.—(1) No pari mutuel betting business shall be carried on on any track, except—
(2) No person shall use any premises not situate on a track, or cause or permit any

969
such premises to be used as a place where persons resorting thereto may effect pari mutuel transactions.
(4) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any provision of the Betting Act, 1853.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY) moved, in subsection (1), after "No pari mutuel," to insert "or pool." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment designed to bring this provision into line with the wording used elsewhere in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, after ("pari mutuel") insert ("or pool").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert "Save as is permitted by the preceding subsection". The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment and the next one on the Order Paper go together. During the Committee stage Lord Strabolgi raised the question whether the Bill as drafted would not allow premises on a track to be used on any day in the week as a clearing house for betting on other tracks, even though the Bill prohibited betting on the racing at that track on more than two nights a week. I think this Amendment and the next make it clear that the effect of the clause would be to prohibit all forms of pari mutuel or pool betting where there is resorting, except at approved horse racecourses and at licenced dog tracks by means of "a totalisator lawfully operated". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, at the beginning insert ("Save as is permitted by the preceding subsection").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("not situate on a track") and insert ("whether situate on a track or not—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the next Amendment on the Order Paper is a drafting Amendment on the same lines as the earlier Amendment at page 3, line 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, after ("pari mutuel") insert ("or pool betting").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the subsection which I propose to leave out reads:
"Nothing in this section affects the operation of any provision of the Betting Act, 1853."
I suppose that means that if it is found out at some subsequent date that the Betting Act of 1853 and this clause clash, then the Betting Act of 1853 is to prevail. I cannot help feeling that there is some doubt in the mind of the noble Marquess that the Betting Act, 1853, and this clause do, or may, clash, otherwise there seems to be no reason why this subsection should have been inserted in the Bill. If there is any doubt in the mind of the noble Marquess, then I suggest that the Bill should be so drawn as to remove any doubt, in order to avoid unnecessary litigation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, Clause 3 prohibits all pari mutuel betting where there is resorting, except for totalisator betting conducted by the Racecourse Betting Control Board or on dog tracks under the provisions in the present Bill. Subsection (4) of Clause 3 provides that nothing in Clause 3 is to affect the operation of any provision of the Betting Act, 1853. The object of subsection (4) is to make it quite clear that Clause 3 of the Bill does not supersede the Betting Act, 1853, in the application of that Act to pari mutuel betting. In other words, a person who conducted, for example, a "tote" club would be liable to be prosecuted either under the provisions of Clause 3 or under the second part of Section 1 of the Betting Act, 1853. He could not, of course, be punished both under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and under the Act of 1853. I would venture to suggest to the noble Viscount who has moved this Amendment that pending an overhaul of the general law as to off-the-course betting it is undesirable to restrict the operation of

971
the Betting Act, 1853, since it is conceivable that undesirable practices might develop in the future, which were not within the terms of Clause 3 of the Bill but might come within the provisions of the 1853 Act. I think therefore that the noble Viscount, after consideration, will see that the Bill as at present drawn, in conjunction with the Act of 1853, is a safeguard which it would be as well to maintain.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for his reply. I was especially glad to hear from him that there is going to be a general overhaul of the Betting Acts; but I suppose we may have to wait perhaps seven years for it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Licensing authorities.
4.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the councils of administrative counties and the councils of county boroughs shall, in relation to their respective areas, be the authorities empowered to grant licences under this Part of this Act authorising the provision of betting facilities on tracks:
Provided that—

(a) any such council may delegate their functions under this Part of this Act to a committee consisting of members of the council; and

(b) any two or more such councils may combine in delegating their functions under this Part of this Act to a joint committee consisting of members of the constituent councils.

(2) The number of members of a committee or joint committee appointed under this section and the term of office of the members thereof shall be fixed by the appointing council or councils, and, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act and to any directions given by the appointing council or councils, the procedure of the committee or joint committee shall be such as they may themselves determine.
(3) Section two hundred and seventy-four of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall not apply in relation to the functions of a county council under this Part of this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to add to subsection (1):
"and
(c) a county council may delegate their functions under this Part of this Act to the standing joint committee of Quarter Sessions and of the county council appointed under Section thirty of the Local Government Act, 1888."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, during the Committee stage different suggestions were put forward by various noble Lords, who proposed to substitute different bodies other than local authorities as the licensing authority. The House probably received the impression that county councils (other than the London County Council) and county borough councils were unwilling to accept the responsibilities which the Bill proposed to confer on them; but the Government are satisfied from information which has subsequently come into their possession that this is by no means the case. The Association of Municipal Corporations have expressed their attiture in a letter dated June 1, 1934, which is addressed to the Home Secretary, and with your Lordships' permission I will take the liberty of reading that letter.
The letter is headed "Betting and Lotteries Bill," and is in these words:
"I am directed by this Association to communicate with you in reference to Clause 4 of this Bill, which provides that the licensing authorities under the Bill shall be the councils of administrative counties and the councils of county boroughs, and to the discussion which took place in the House of Lords on the 30th ultimo upon an Amendment moved by Lord Jessel to substitute for those councils the licensing justices.
It is noted that in the course of the discussion and before the withdrawal of the Amendment the Marquess of Londonderry stated that he would give the matter further consideration before the Report stage. In view of this statement, I am to submit that the clause should not be altered. This Association, as representing the councils of boroughs throughout England and Wales, have for several years urged the importance of legislation giving to these councils further control over the establishment and continuance of dog racing tracks, particularly for the protection of amenities, and they regard it as essential in the public interests that the administration of the Bill, so far as it relates to these matters, should be in the hands of such councils.
It is unnecessary for me to remind you that under Clause 6 of the Bill the discretion of the licensing authority is limited, and that the subjects which they are to take into account are the health and comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood of the track, the interests of persons receiving instruction or residing in any school or institution in that neighbourhood, the amenities of the neighbourhood, the prevention of undue congestion of traffic and the preservation of law and order. It is submitted that these are essentially matters for the determination of the local authority.

973
I am to add that the subject is one to which the councils of boroughs naturally attach great importance, and I am to express the hope that the Government will not modify the Bill in this respect."
The Home Secretary has also received a further letter, dated 6th June, from the Association of Municipal Corporations, stating that the subject to which the Association attach the greatest importance is that local authorities should be the authorities under the Bill to decide whether or not dog racing tracks should be established or continued, bearing in mind the several conditions mentioned in Clause 6. The Association further state that if the selection of the days upon which betting facilities may be provided has to be dealt with locally, they think that this duty also should be discharged by the local authorities and not by the justices or any other body.
As regards the attitude of the County Councils Association, the Association in November, 1932, passed a resolution to the following effect:
"That the Council concur with the Urban District Councils Association in their view that mare stringent control with regard to dog racing and other contests is desirable, and request the Home Office to take such steps as are necessary to place the control and establishment of premises used or proposed to be used for these purposes in the hands of the county and county borough councils as licensing authorities."
We understand that the County Councils Association still hold the views expressed in this resolution, and this is supported by the fact that the Amendment which was put on the Order Paper during the Committee stage by Lord Bayford, on behalf of the County Councils Association, accepted the principle which is embodied in the Bill, that county councils should remain the licensing authorities; but the Amendment embodied the idea that they should have power to delegate their functions to the standing joint committee. That is what the Amendment now moved by the Government proposes. The Government, therefore, had to approach their reconsideration of the question from the standpoint that local authorities so far from entertaining any objection to being licensing authorities under the Bill positively desired that the licensing functions should be exercised by the local authorities.
The Government have come to the conclusion that no radical alteration of the principle of the Bill, in this matter of
974
the licensing authority, is either necessary or desirable. They have, however, been very much impressed by the representation made on behalf of the County Councils Association that county councils should be empowered to delegate their licensing functions to standing joint committees, who as your Lordships are aware, are bodies appointed under Section 30 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and consist of an equal number of justices appointed by County Quarter Sessions and of county councillors appointed by the county council. We understand that it is not every county council which will wish to delegate the licensing functions to the standing joint committee, and the Amendment, therefore, proposes merely to empower such county councils to delegate their functions to the standing joint committee as may desire to do so. The Government, as your Lordships will be aware, have given very anxious consideration to the question, and have given full weight to all the points of view expressed in the course of previous debates, and they hope that the solution which they now propose will satisfy, or at least go a long way in the direction of satisfying, those who expressed anxiety about the Government's original proposals. In particular, the Government hope that the Amendment will remove some, at any rate, of the difficulties which were voiced by Lord Snell on behalf of the London County Council.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, at end, insert the said paragraph (c).—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out "may" and insert "shall." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid I shall be thought rather ungrateful if, after the concession which has been made by the Government, I move this Amendment. The effect of its adoption would be that every county council would have to delegate its powers, instead of its being permissive. May I take the case of London first of all? The main argument put forward by the noble Lord who is Chairman of the London County Council was that it had no control of the Police. That is true. The Metropolitan Police area extends for fifteen miles from Charing Cross; and what do we find in that area, which com-

975
prises the County of London, the County of Middlesex and portions of Essex, Surrey and Kent?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And Hertfordshire.
LORD JESSEL: A very little bit of Hertfordshire. I am sorry I left out that important County. It seems to me that, in dealing with this area, if we do not have uniformity we shall run into great confusion. One county council may delegate its powers to the standing joint committee and another county council may delegate its powers to some other committee. It seems to me that we shall get into a tremendous mess unless there is uniformity and all the standing joint committees of these various councils can combine together for joint purposes. That is my point as regards the area of the Metropolitan Police, and those counties which are within that area. The standing joint committee is a very good committee. It is composed as to one half of members who are nominated by the county council, and as to the other half of those justices who are nominated at Quarter Sessions. I might add that included in it in the case of the County of London there are eighteen members. Nine are appointed by the London County Council and nine by the justices at Quarter Sessions, but among those nine are two gentlemen, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, both of whom have eminent legal qualifications. Your Lordships may remember that, as regards licences and the numerous questions connected therewith, it was held by many noble Lords, speaking with great authority in this House, that legal and judicial minds were required to deal with those matters. I submit that for that reason—though I should have preferred some other committee—the standing joint commitee is far better than any other committee which has been suggested. I am supported in that view by the speech of Lord Merrivale on the last occasion, who was himself Chairman of Quarter Sessions, besides holding high judicial office, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who suggested that in his opinion it was preferable that these functions of a quasi-judicial nature should be exercised by the justices.
There is one other point about the outside counties—outside in the sense of
976
their being outside the Metropolitan Police district—which may carry weight with your Lordships in deciding this question. One thing that we want to do—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, will agree with me in this—is to remove the question of the licensing of betting tracks from the purview of local politics. The noble Lord in his weighty speech very strongly affirmed the necessity for that. It might happen very possibly in some counties that they would not avail themselves at all of the elasticity which the noble Marquess provides in his Amendment, and the whole county council might decide this question and we should then get an atmosphere—which I think your Lordships cannot contemplate with equanimity—of political wrangling at elections which, as everybody in this House who spoke on the matter agreed, would not be for the benefit either of local government or of the judicial frame of mind which is so necessary.
I am grateful to the noble Marquess, who, with that Parliamentary skill which he has shown in piloting through your Lordships' House this very difficult and controversial Bill, agreed to the suggestion of the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, to defer consideration of this matter to the Report stage. I thank him for that; but at the same time I do hope, for the reasons which I stated, that he will agree to my Amendment. It will remove a good many difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, has an Amendment down later which amounts more or less to the same thing. If a change is to be made it might be made all round, and we should get uniformity, and I do not think anybody would be worse off. As regards the Association of Municipal Corporations, I think anybody who heard Lord Bayford's speech will agree that with that Association it was a matter more or less of machinery—which is dealt with by another Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry—which made them averse from handing this over to the standing joint committees.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 1 of paragraph (c), leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Jessel.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it will be recollected that during

977
the Committee stage there was a considerable body of opinion against the Government on this matter, and the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill undertook to reconsider it. We are all indebted to him for the opportunity he has given for further consideration. I very much regret that I am unable myself to accept his conclusions. My view is really in support of the Amendment to the Amendment proposed by Lord Jessel. In substance it means that whilst there is no objection to the Government's present proposals to vest the licensing authority in the county council, the county council nevertheless should be bound, instead of merely having the option, to delegate its functions as licensing authority to the standing joint committee. I take this view on what, I conceive to be broader lines than those put forward in the first part of the argument of Lord Jessel, not so much from the way in which it would affect London, or because it would secure uniformity: my ground of objection to leaving it to the county council as the licensing authority is one of broad principle which I would commend respectfully to your Lordships' consideration.
It is eminently undesirable that we should leave functions of this character to an elected body like the county council. Political considerations must then enter into the matter. One has to remember that the functions are not merely those of considering the amenities of the neighbourhood in order to determine whether or not these tracks should be there, but there are also judicial functions to be exercised. Under Clause 6 it is quite true there are limits to the discretion. There are certain provisions which make the restriction quite clear. Nevertheless, the authority must come to a conclusion, and must give its reasons as provided in Clause 6. Then Clause 15 is an important clause, which gives power to revoke a licence at any time; and, naturally, when a licence is applied for again, there is not only the power but the duty of consideration before coming to a conclusion. It seems to me eminently undesirable that questions of this character should have to be decided entirely by a body which is elected and which has to submit itself for re-election. You can easily see, especially when you are dealing with such matters as betting facilities on tracks, that there may be a number of
978
persons who will have their views about this, and will make those views heard at election time.
There are difficulties in making the Quarter Sessions the licensing authority. I see that. There is a great deal to be said for the county council being the body to deal with questions which depend upon the amenities in the neighbourhood and various local considerations; no doubt they can better decide those questions than the justices. But, for all the reasons I have referred to—Clause 6 and Clause 15 with the power of revocation of the licence, and so on—I thought on reconsideration that a good and workable compromise was to have these matters delegated to the standing joint committees by the county councils. It has this advantage. After all, these committees consist, as to one-half, of county council members, and as to the other half, of justices. Consequently you get a tribunal which combines the two functions, and that, I submit, is the best. My noble friend who is in charge of the Bill has recognised this to a great extent, but it does seem to me he has not recognised it to the full extent, because in the Amendment he has proposed and his later Amendment he says the licensing authority should be the county council and the county council should have the power, but he does not impose on the county council the obligation. That is the point of Lord Jessel's Amendment.
If you substitute "shall" for "may" in my noble friend's Amendment, the effect of it would be that the authority then would be the standing joint committee. That seems to me, taking into account the difficulty both in regard to justices and the county council, the best tribunal to decide this matter. I admit it does not get away from the objection of persons taking part in these discussions who have to submit themselves to the electors. As I understand these standing joint committees, half of them consist of county council authorities who have to submit themselves to re-election and the other half of members who have not to submit themselves to reelection. Whatever it is, it is a better tribunal if you have half the tribunal consisting of justices who are in an independent position and used to exercising judicial functions. Therefore I do press with all respect on the Government that

979
it would be better to accept this Amendment. It would also give us the advantage of uniformity—that is to say, instead of one county council delegating and another not delegating, it would mean they would all have to delegate. We should not leave the whole of this matter to the county council, which is not the proper body, as it seems to me, to deal with the judicial questions that must arise, and consequently I beg to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel
EARL PEEL: My Lords, may I say one word in support of Lord Jessel's Amendment? I was rather strengthened in my support of that Amendment by listening to the letters which the noble Marquess read out from the associations of county councils and borough councils, because both bodies, I think, said they wished to be the licensing authority. If that really is their wish it is obvious that the Amendment of the noble Marquess will be a dead letter, because if you leave them the liberty of delegating their functions or retaining them, and they have expressed their desire to exercise these functions, it is easy to see that they will not delegate them, in which case the Amendment of the noble Marquess will have no effect.
I listened carefully to these letters, and, so far as I could understand them the desire of the county councils and borough councils was rather to have some say or control over the matter of licensing these tracks in connection with congestion of traffic, amenities, schools, and so on. As I understand it, under the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess these things are very largely secured, because you have half of this body appointed from the county councils who will be able very vigorously to express the views of the county councils on these points. The noble Marquess knows well it is a very common method for county councils and similar bodies to send representatives to sit on all kinds of other bodies, and great attention is paid to what they say, and I think this question will really be met by the representations that these gentlemen as members of that body will be able to make to their magisterial colleagues.
Listening rather carefully to the letters which the noble Marquess read out, it
980
seemed to me they did not deal at all with that very important point of whether they are the bodies who ought to exercise these judicial functions. That is a point of the greatest importance, and I would draw the attention of the noble Marquess to the fact that these questions were not mentioned in the letters which he read out. I was one of those who urged as strongly as I could on the previous stage the removal of this matter from the jurisdiction of the borough councils and the county councils altogether, and I hope the noble Marquess will not be too much moved by the representations made in these letters. It is reasonable that bodies should not disclaim any duties which are to be thrown upon them, and I hope the noble Marquess will take the wider view and recognise the undesirability of bringing this question into local politics and mixing up administrative and judicial duties. I hope that he will lend a favourable ear to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jessel.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, your Lordships will notice that later on there is an Amendment on the Order Paper standing in my name, but if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, should be accepted by His Majesty's Government or carried by your Lordships' House that Amendment which I propose to move would be more or less unnecessary. Therefore, your Lordships will perhaps permit me to say a word or two on what is in the mind of the London County Council on this point. In regard to Lord Jessel's Amendment we feel somehow that delegation ought to carry with it a certain amount of discretion; that you do not delegate merely by ordering. On the other hand, we feel that the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill does not give us all that we should like. The noble Marquess will not expect too much gratitude in regard to the passing of Bills, but if I may be permitted to point out what our difficulty is it will explain the Amendment which I may be called upon to move later.
If the matter is not carried further than he has proposed in the Government Amendment we feel that confusion and misunderstanding are bound to arise. A county council may desire to delegate their powers to a standing joint com-

981
mittee, but that standing joint committee may refuse to accept. Thus there may be prolonged and useless negotiations and discussions as to the basis of power which shall be delegated, and generally throughout the country there would ensue a state of uncertainty and confusion. Therefore we feel that if these powers are delegated it should be an obligation on the part of the body to whom they are delegated to accept that responsibility. The general case has been well and sufficiently put by the three noble Lords who have spoken, and I will not detain your Lordships by repeating good arguments, but if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is not accepted I shall be compelled to ask your Lordships to consider the Amendment that stands in my name.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, this Amendment is identical, or almost identical, with the one that appeared in my name on the Committee stage. I put it down at the instance of the committee of the County Councils Association. The Amendment was drafted by a committee of that Association of which I was not a member, but I was asked to put the Amendment down officially on behalf of the Association. When the Amendment came on I defended it to the best of my ability. I used those arguments which I thought would most commend the Amendment to your Lordships. I thought they were good arguments, but they appear not to have been the same arguments which led the committee of the County Councils Association to ask me to put down the Amendment originally, and I am quite ready to admit that I stated the case on behalf of relegation to the standing joint committee with more force than I think members of that committee would have done themselves. However, the Amendment as it is now on the Paper is the Amendment which has been asked for and which is desired by the County Councils Association. It is their deliberate desire that they should have this power entrusted to the county councils, but that the county councils should be empowered to delegate it to any committee that they may wish if they find that it would not be possible for them to delegate it to the standing joint committee. That committee, by the nature of its function, would appear to be the most appropriate committee for the pur-
982
pose, for the legal reason that part of that committee consists of the county council but the other half consists of magistrates, so that it is not wholly a committee of the county council.
The sole reason why they put down this Amendment was that they wanted to have free choice to delegate these powers to any committee of the county council, including the standing joint Committee. That is the attitude that the County Councils Association has taken up. They have considered this matter carefully, and that is the decision at which they have arrived. Briefly it is that they wish to have power to delegate it to any committee which they form, including the standing joint committee. It is a very arguable point, I think, how far these functions are judicial and how far they are administrative. In Clause 6 they are practically entirely administrative. It is quite true that there is a question under Clause 15 of the taking away of a licence. That, I have no doubt, might be called a judicial function, but I think, in the working practice of the Bill if it becomes law, it will be found that nine-tenths of the powers to be executed by whatever committee they are entrusted to are not judicial but administrative. It is for that reason I think that the County Councils Association wish to keep that power in their hands. I admit that their reason is more one of expediency than of logic, but it is a decision which they have deliberately arrived at, and it is the decision that the Government have now expressed in the Bill, and I venture to hope that it is a decision which the House will support.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Londonderry will accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Jessel. When I said a few words upon this subject the other day I did so because I thought it would be an extremely dangerous thing to put this power into the hands of any elected body. It will be an extremely unpopular duty. Whatever is done is certain not to please, I will not say the majority hut a great number of people, and the result will be, when the election for the county council takes place, that there will be a large number of people who will say: "The county council were not obliged to submit the duty to the standing joint committee; they could

983
have kept it in their own hands. We see that when this question was discussed at the county council, this member and that voted for sending it to the joint committee; we shall therefore vote against them at this election. Because we think we have been injured in our amusements, or in our pockets or in some other way, we shall vote against these people." It was for that reason, and that reason alone, that I ventured to urge your Lordships to support the Amendment then suggested by my noble friend Lord Jessel, and I urge your Lordships to support the Amendment now in order to avoid any misunderstanding of that sort.
With regard to what my noble friend Lord Bayford has just said, I do not think we must follow the wishes of the county councils in everything on a question of this sort. They are naturally anxious to keep everything in their own hands; but what we are anxious to do is to see that they carry out their duties and that they are not subject to the unpopularity which is certain to come if they take upon themselves the duty of deciding upon these courses. I always have supported the Government upon this Bill, so I am not now speaking as an opponent of it in any way whatever.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, when the Bill was being discussed at an earlier stage I ventured to suggest that there are judicial elements in the function which is here under consideration, and that the standing joint committee was an existing statutory authority which dealt with matters involving difficulties where it was thought that the justices of the county might well co-operate with the members of the county council in doing what was best in the public interest. It was apparent at that time, I think, that the matter was one of principle, and there was a large measure of concurrence in the view that the standing joint committee could so act as to retain proper influence in the matter in the county councils without detriment to the judicial character of some of the functions to be exercised. It is impossible to emphasise the importance of that judicial element more strongly than was done by my noble friend Lord Reading on the other side. Really the noble Marquess emphasised it to a degree which could not have been
984
strengthened, and, as I understand the matter, His Majesty's Government recognise that there is a question of principle involved.
That is the question of principle which the noble Marquess has defined, and, there being this question of principle, and it being apparently the view of His Majesty's Government that the duties in question could properly be exercised by the standing joint committee, nevertheless an Amendment is framed which leaves it optional whether the question of principle shall be resolved in that way or not. I cannot help thinking that when this matter is considered further by His Majesty's Government, they will see that a question of principle should be dealt with as a question of principle, and that when we say it ought to be attended to the proper words to express that determination are that it shall be attended to. I hope that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Jessel will be accepted by His Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, after what has been said by so many noble Lords I appeal to His Majesty's Government to meet the obvious views of a large number of members of the House by withdrawing the permissive power which they have proposed in the Amendment. I belong to a county which has enormous functions to discharge through the county council. Hitherto our elections have been carried on with practically no political or other bias but simply from the public point of view. I see a prospect that an element will be introduced into those elections wholly foreign to the purpose for which county councils were originally established. It is likely to have a very serious effect if we leave to the county council the right of deciding for themselves whether in this matter, which is a judicial matter, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, they will or will not delegate their powers. After what has been said the real sense of the House is obvious, and I appeal to the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, to give effect to it.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, we have heard a great deal from the county council's point of view on the question of giving powers to them to delegate their function to a standing

985
joint committee, but not a word has been said about county boroughs. A county borough, as your Lordships know, has no standing joint committee. If you are going to avoid the difficulties pointed out in the case of county councils by putting this power of licensing entirely in the hands of elected bodies you must also deal with the county boroughs. If it is right to leave the power in the hands of an elected body like a county borough council, it is surely right to leave it in the hands of an elected body like a county council. I think it is only proper that power should be given to the county council to delegate their powers if they so desire and they should not be bound by Acts of Parliament to do this. May I remind your Lordships of the Amendment which I ventured to propose in the Committee stage, which I am sorry His Majesty's Government have not been able to adopt, to include non-county boroughs? I have not troubled your Lordships by putting down the same Amendment again, but I earnestly appeal to the noble Marquess to take up the matter with the Home Secretary so that before the Bill is finally disposed of this matter may be considered again. I would like to mention Harrogate as an instance. The question of licensing will be in the hands of the county council, which meets at a considerable distance. I think it is desirable that local authorities in a place like Harrogate should have the power of licensing rather than a county council sitting some distance away.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I submit that the importance of the judicial function of the licensing authority under this Bill has been somewhat exaggerated. County councils and local authorities have exercised judicial functions for years. The London County Council has been acting as the licensing authority for public music and dancing since it was established. I admit that for the first two or three years it was somewhat erratic, but having been corrected by the High Court once or twice its conduct in these proceedings has been most decorous and, if I may say so, judicial. I have had the privilege of appearing before the county council and no one could in any way criticise the manner in which they have discharged their duties. That duty in respect of granting licences is partly
986
administrative and partly judicial. Some years later there was further provision for authorities acting as the licensing authority for public music and dancing. I have never heard of any complaint of the manner in which local authorities have discharged that function. In addition, the county councils for a great number of years have exercised judicial functions under numerous Acts, have appeared before county councils at local inquiries and they have been conducted with as much decorum and fairness as any other inquiry. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that within the last two or three years county councils have had a most important judicial function conferred on them in the matter of adjusting boundaries of parishes, creating urban districts and of sometimes having to abolish parishes. So far as I know there has been no complaint of the way in which that function has been discharged.
When it is said that in respect of these licences there may be an element of impropriety in a county council acting as a licensing authority, it seems to me that these instances prove that the objection is not a good one. Difficulty would arise if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is carried. He speaks of uniformity. The last speaker asked a question about the position of county boroughs. They have no standing joint committee. The Police are under the watch committee. In their case the authority would have to be conferred upon the watch committee which consists of members of the borough council. You cannot get uniformity and I do not think it is a subject in which uniformity much matters. I think the proposal of the Government is quite a fair one and I hope that they will adhere to their Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I was impressed by what I may term the ethical part of the speech of the noble and learned Marquess opposite, but I should like to point out that while this clause may be all very well for people south of the Tweed—or it may not be—there is no standing joint committee in Scotland. Therefore I hope the noble Marquess will arrange with the Home Office and the Scottish Office to insert some provision so that the law may be to all intents and purposes the same in the North as in the South.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that the debate to which we have listened has been a very interesting one. It has ranged over a somewhat wide area. The noble Duke who spoke last raised a point in connection with Scotland. I would ask him to be good enough to raise that point again when we come to the clause dealing with the application of the Bill to Scotland and my noble friend Lord Strathcona will then endeavour to give him an answer. The Amendment put down by the Government to Clause 4 proposes to give power to a county council to delegate its functions under this Bill to the standing joint committee. My noble friend Lord Jessel has moved an Amendment, which your Lordships are now considering, to require a county council in every case to delegate its functions to the standing joint committee. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is to make the power of delegation mandatory instead of discretionary.
As your Lordships are aware I had an opportunity, for which I am most grateful, of meeting the noble Lords who spoke on this Amendment on an earlier stage of this Bill. They were good enough to come and discuss with me at the Home Office the implications, the influence and the action of this clause which we are now discussing. I had hoped that the argument which I was able, with my advisers, to put before them would have had more effect upon them than it has done. Whilst I need hardly say to the noble Lords who sit opposite me that I am not expecting any gratitude, still I had hoped that the modifications which we were prepared to accept and embody in the Bill would have given greater pleasure to noble Lords than they appear to have done.
Compulsory delegation by county councils is tantamount to placing the functions directly on standing joint committees, and on behalf of the Government I am bound to say that we see very strong objection to any such proposal. If the delegation to standing joint committees is to be compulsory, surely the correct course would be to confer the licensing powers directly on the standing joint committees. There seems to be no virtue in the proposal that the licensing authority should be the county council,
988
but that the county council should be compelled to delegate its functions to the standing joint committee. In the second place if this Amendment is accepted the House will have accepted the principle that in English counties the licensing functions should not be exercised by the locally elected body, but by a body consisting partly of elected and partly of non-elected members. But the mover of this Amendment does not propose that the same principle should apply to English county boroughs or to Scottish counties or burghs which have no standing joint committee. If county councils are not to be allowed to exercise the licensing functions if they so desire, I think it may be said that neither should county borough councils be allowed to do so, and the Government could riot advise the House to accept an Amendment which proposes to treat counties on one basis and county boroughs on a quite different basis.
As I have already explained, we believe that the licensing functions under the Bill can properly be exercised by local authorities, who are in fact the bodies best fitted for the purpose. We understand, from the communications which I have read to your Lordships in the form of a letter and in the form of a resolution, that a large number of county councils desire themselves to exercise the powers conferred on them in the Bill and will not delegate these powers to the standing joint committees. The noble Marquess who spoke on this Amendment has put forward very carefully his considered opinion that this is a matter which should not come before the county councils because of their elective character. When I heard the noble Marquess make that speech I was inclined to say that for a great many years past it has been my firm belief that the Party to which I have the honour to belong are always much more inclined to trust the people of this country than the Party to which the noble Marquess himself belongs; but I was sorry to hear that my noble friends with whom I fought the battle in the House of Commons for many years in days gone by, Lord Peel, the great protagonist of democracy, and Lord Banbury, the representative of the man in the street, should have gone so far as to show a greater

989
distrust of county councils than even the noble Lord opposite.
I am bound to say that speaking for myself—and I am glad to put forward an Amendment for the Government in this connection—I have complete faith in the democracy of this country. I am quite sure in my mind that these duties should be administered by the elected bodies of this country, and that the modification which is given to them by the power to delegate their authority to the standing joint committee is a modification which gives them a latitude which they are quite entitled to have. My noble friend Lord Midleton spoke of the county council of which he has very wide experience. I would venture, as one who certainly has not had the experience in connection with county councils which he himself has had, to suggest that the duties of county councils, like the duties of every other public body, and I might also say the duties of every individual, have increased in enormous proportions during the last few years. County councils now find themselves confronted with duties with which in years gone by they never contemplated they would be confronted. It is not as if county councils were unfamiliar with controversy. There are controversies in county councils on matters which have nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and I cannot believe that a matter of this description, which may be contentious and may be difficult to deal with, is one which should be removed from a democratic assembly, who after all are representative of the population of the county which they govern.
The scheme of this Bill has been criticised on various grounds. It has been said that if local authorities are made the licensing authority for betting, very undesirable issues will thereby be introduced into local politics. I would venture to suggest that the terms of the Bill minimise these potential dangers in a number of ways. First of all by making a licence last for seven years instead of for one year; thus the issues could come up in local politics only at long intervals. In the whole of the London County Council area there are only ten tracks. All these will have a five years moratorium and therefore the question will arise only at seven-yearly intervals. The same is true of most of the other areas.
990
Secondly, the licensing authorities will have nothing to do with the morality of betting. They can refuse a licence only on certain grounds which are specified in the Bill and will have to state in writing the reasons for their refusal. Again, the scheme has been criticised on the ground that while the function of the licensing of tracks may be properly entrusted to local authorities, the function of licensing tracks for betting is not properly a matter for the local authority but should be performed by the Police. I venture to observe in reply to this criticism that there would be no dog track racing without betting. Licensing a track for betting is tantamount to licensing the erection of a track. Even if the function of the local authority were limited to licensing the erection of a track, they would have to take into account exactly the same considerations as are specified in Clause 4 of the Bill.
I hope that your Lordships will consider this Amendment on its merits. We feel very strongly that this is a duty which should be conferred on county councils with the latitude which the Amendment I have put on the Order Paper after the Committee stage gives to those county councils. We feel that this is the best way in which the Bill, when it becomes an Act, can be administered. I am sorry, therefore, that on behalf of the Government I must refuse the Amendment moved by my noble friend behind me.
LORD JESSEL: I am very sorry to intervene again, but I am afraid I am not convinced by the reply of the noble Marquess, and I would like to call your Lordships' attention to one of the most powerful speeches made on this question by Lord Amulree on the Second Reading. He said:
"A non-elected body has in many respects qualifications for this kind of duty which are not perhaps possessed by an elected body. It would be disastrous if organised bodies of bookmakers were to intervene in local elections and spend large sums of money in furthering their own views. Moreover, the substitution of justices for the county council and county borough council would be in keeping with precedent. Under the Racecourse Licensing Act of 1879 the justices in Quarter Sessions are the licensing authority, and it would save confusion if the justices were to become the licensing authority under the Bill as well."

991
I do not think that any more potent argument could be put forward.
LORD AMULREE: Will my noble friend read the words which preceded those which he has read?
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out from the beginning down to and including "thereof" and insert "Where functions under this Part of this Act are delegated to a committee or joint committee, the number and term of office of the members thereof shall, in the case of a committee or joint committee specially appointed for the purpose." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that a county council exercising licensing functions May delegate its powers either to an existing committee of the council of to a committee specially
On Question, Whether the word "may" shall stand part of the Amendment?
Their Lordships divided, Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Astor, V.

Elton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Chaplin, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Dunedin, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Exmouth, V.

Lawrence, L.

Salisbury, M.

Goschen, V.

Luke, L.

Zetland, M.

Hailsham, V.

Palmer, L.

Halifax, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ullswater, V.

Rayleigh, L.

Bathurst, E.

Remnant, L.

Bradford, E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Rennell, L.

Dudley, E.

Rochester, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Aberdare, L.

Rockley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Alvingham, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Amulree, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Bayford, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Minto, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Somerleyton, L.

Munster, E.

Brocket, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Powis, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Swansea, L.

Rothes, E.

Darling, L.

Templemore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Daryngton, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Eltisley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Reading, M.

Clwyd, L.

Merthyr, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Buxton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Monkswell, L.

Midleton, E.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Peel, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

O'Hagan, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Hindlip, L.

Rhayader, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Sanderson, L.

Mersey, V.

Jessel, L. [Teller.]

Snell, L.

Joicey, L.

Stanmore, L.

Arnold, L.

Marley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Askwith, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Teynham, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Merrivale, L.

On Question, original Amendment agreed to.

appointed for the purpose. The Amendment is intended to clear up a doubt which was expressed by Lord Bayford as to whether the Bill as it originally stood gave a council power to delegate its functions to an existing committee of the council.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out from the beginning to ("shall") in line 39 and insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to insert after subsection (2):
"(3) Any expenses incurred in the execution of this Part of this Act by a standing joint committee shall he defrayed by the council of the county and any expenses so incurred by any other joint committee shall be defrayed by the appointing councils in such shares as may be agreed."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the first part of this Amendment dealing with the expenses of a standing joint committee is consequential on the proposal that a county council should have power to delegate its functions under the Bill to the standing joint committee. Under the Local Government Act, 1888, the county council defrays the expenses which are incurred by the standing joint committee when performing the functions assigned to the committee in that Act, and this provision makes the same arrangement in the case of expenses incurred by the standing joint committee in performing duties under the present Bill. The Amendment also deals with the expenses incurred by a joint committee appointed by two or more councils under the proviso (b) to subsection (1) of Clause 4, and provides that the expenses of such a joint committee shall be defrayed by the appointing councils in such shares as may be agreed.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, naturally the local bodies desire to ensure that their expenses will not be unduly increased by any liability of this kind. It is provided in the Bill that payment to local authorities by the holder of the betting licence may be an annual fee not exceeding £50, which is a very considerable amount. But I want to ask the noble Marquess a question upon this. If powers are delegated to a standing joint committee and their expenses are defrayed by the delegating council, what is the Government's proposal as regards the destination of the proceeds of licensing fees payable under Clause 8 (4)? Also what about the expenses when a licence is refused? because, if the standing joint committee should see fit to refuse a licence, that will only be after considerable inquiry, and perhaps negotiation involving expense. It would seem that there should be some fee attached to application as well as to the granting of the licence, in order that the local authorities should not find themselves saddled with expenses for refusal.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord's question is that the ex-
994
penses of the standing joint committee must fall on the county council. They have no funds of their own, and therefore the expenses must fall on the county council. But in view of what the noble Lord has said I will certainly make inquiries as to these fees and their destination, and I shall probably be able to say something on that point on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) If a county council delegate their functions under this Part of this Act to the standing joint committee referred to in subsection (1) of this section that committee shall, in relation to the area of the county council and in lieu of that council, be the authority empowered to grant licences under this Part of this Act authorising the provision of betting facilities on tracks."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that at an earlier stage I made some comments in relation to an Amendment by Lord Jessel, and I now move this Amendment, to which I then referred. We feel that if a county council seeks to delegate this duty to a standing joint committee there ought to be some obligation upon the standing joint committee to accept the duty that is imposed upon it.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Snell.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, in form a standing joint committee might be able to refuse to exercise the powers which the county council wished to delegate to it, but I think it will be found in practice that this will probably never occur, because the standing joint committee consists half of county councillors and the rest of nominated persons, and it seems hardly likely that a body consisting half of county councillors would refuse to carry out duties allocated to them by the county council. But I agree that there is a point of substance in what the noble Lord says, and I will enquire into it and on Third Reading give him a considered answer, because this is a point into which my advisers have not gone very closely.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Notices of, and procedure with respect to, applications for licences.
(2) No application for a licence shall be entertained unless, at least two months before the date on which the application is made, the applicant has given to the licensing authority and to the chief officer of Police notice in writing stating that it is intended to make the application on that date, and containing such particulars as are hereinafter mentioned, and has also published such a notice in at least two newspapers circulating in the locality in which the track is situate.
The notice required by this subsection shall describe the situation of the track and the number and position of the exits provided or intended to be provided, and state the number of spectators for whom accommodation is provided or is intended to be provided.
(3) Subject as hereinafter provided, upon the consideration by the licensing authority of an application for the grant of a licence, the following persons, in addition to the applicant, shall he entitled to be heard in person or by a representative, that is to say, the chief officer of Police, any responsible authority ender a planning scheme in force in an area which includes the track or any part thereof, the local authority of the district in which the track or any part thereof is situate, the local authority of any adjoining district, any person owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of the track and the governing body of any institution in the neighbourhood of the track:
Provided that—

(a) no objector shall be heard unless he has given to the applicant and to the licensing authority at least seven days notice in writing of the grounds on which he proposes to contend that the application ought to be refused; and

(b) no local authority shall be entitled to be heard as objectors if the licensing authority consists of, or includes, representatives of that local authority.

LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (2), after "authority," to insert "to the local authority of the district in which the track or any part thereof is situate, to the responsible authority under a town-planning scheme in force in an area which includes the track or any part thereof." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a small matter in the Bill which should be put right. As the Bill stands an applicant for a licence for a track has to give notice to the licensing authority and to the chief officer of Police, but that is all. It may therefore happen that in a big county, when an application is made for
996
a track to the county council, the district council concerned—which might be a very important district council, or a borough council—might not receive notice. The Bill provides that notice shall also be inserted in two newspapers circulating in the district. Those words are a little vague and the provision might be conformed to by the insertion of the notice in two national dailies; and you could scarcely expect the district council clerks to be constantly watching the national dailies to see whether some licence has been applied for in their area.
There is also the point in regard to the town-planning authorities. It does not always follow that the local authority is the town-planning authority for a particular place. There are instances where the town-planning authority is different from the local authority—different, for instance, from the district council. This Amendment would meet that point. It is surely a very little thing to ask that an applicant for a licence shall give notice not only to the licensing authority but also to the local authority concerned or to the town-planning authority in cases where those two are not the same. I think very little can be said against the Amendment, but a great deal can be said for it, and I hope that the noble Marquess will give it favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, after ("authority") insert the said words.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved proposes that an applicant for a licence should give notice to the local authority of the district in which the track is situated and to the responsible authority under any town-planning scheme which affects the track. These two authorities have the statutory right under subsection (3) of Clause 5 of making representations to the licensing authority; but the Urban District Councils Association have represented that these bodies would not be in a position to make representations unless they also received notification of the proposed application. The Bill requires an applicant to advertise his application in at least two newspapers circulating in the locality in which the track is situated, and I was advised that such publication would be sufficient to enable the local authorities to inform themselves of the application. The noble Lord who has

997
moved this Amendment seems to think that this is putting undue work on the local authorities, and that they might have difficulty in discovering what they want to know by looking through the newspapers, and that it would occupy an undue proportion of their time. I am sure it gives me great pleasure to be able to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I am not certain that we always find ourselves in agreement, and it gives me additional pleasure on that account.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, may I be allowed to thank the noble Marquess very much for kindly accepting this Amendment? May I also observe that this is the first Amendment which I have moved in your Lordships' House that has been accepted?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in proviso (b) in subsection (3), to leave out "consists of, or includes, representatives of that local authority" and insert "are a committee of that local authority, or a joint committee including persons appointed by that local authority." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to clear up a doubt which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Bayford and other noble Lords who took part in the Committee stage. I think the present Amendment will remove all possibility and misunderstanding on this point. The effect of it is to make clear that the council of a non-county borough or other county district, the council of a Metropolitan borough, and the Common Council of the City of London will in all cases be entitled to make representations to the licensing authority. The only circumstances in which a local authority cannot make representations to the licensing authority are those in which the licensing authority is a committee exercising licensing powers by virtue of a delegation of those powers by that local authority. I think this Amendment covers the point which was raised, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out ("from authority") to end of line 10 and insert ("are a committee of that, local authority, or a Mint committee including persons appointed by that local authority").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL moved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "joint committee", to insert "(other than a standing joint committee)". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can put my point in quite a few words. It appears to us that the standing joint committee includes of course representatives of the county council. Therefore, in order to snake it clear that if licensing powers are delegated to a standing joint committee the council should not be debarred from taking action under Clause 5, it seems advisable that after the words "joint committee" in the Amendment of the noble Marquess the words which I suggest should be inserted.
Amendment to proposed Amendment moved—
After ("joint committee") insert ("(other than a standing joint committee)").—(Lord Snell.)
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, may I be allowed to say one word as regards the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Marquess? I wish to think him on behalf of those authorities for whom I spoke before for the concession he has made in this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the Government Amendment proposes that no local authority shall he entitled to be heard as objectors to the grant of a licence if the licensing authority are a committee of that local authority, or a joint committee including persons appointed by that local authority. The noble Lord proposes to amend this, so as to allow a county council, which has delegated its licensing functions to the standing joint committee, to be heard as objectors before the standing joint committee. Where a county council or county borough council delegates its licensing functions to a committee of the council, it would obviously be wrong that the council should be able to appear before its own committee as witnesses for one side in an issue which the committee has to consider impartially. The objection is equally strong in the case of a county council and standing joint committee. The standing joint committee consists, as to one-half, of members of the county council. If the county council were to appear before the standing joint committee as an objector to the grant of a licence, then by implica-

999
tion one-half of the members of the committee—namely, the county councillors—would be regarded as having pre-judged the issue which it was their duty to consider impartially after hearing the arguments on both sides. A situation of that kind could not fail to destroy public faith in the impartiality of the licensing authority.
There is the less justification for the present proposal, because the smaller local authorities (such as urban and rural district councils, non-county borough councils, and Metropolitan borough councils) can make representations to the licensing authority. One or other of these smaller authorities represents the interests of every locality in the counties. No part of any county is left without a local authority which can speak on its behalf before the licensing authority. In most counties this local authority will be an urban or rural district council, in London it will be a Metropolitan borough council. On these grounds, therefore, we feel that the Amendment is not only undesirable but is also unnecessary, and I would ask the House not to accept it.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Establishment of totalisators on dog racecourses.
(3) The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to every totalisator operated in pursuance of this section on a licensed track being a dog racecourse, and if any person operating a totalisator on such a track contravenes, or fails to comply with, any of the provisions of that Schedule the operation of that totalisator shall be deemed to be a contravention of Section three of this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "the operation of that totalisator shall be deemed to be a contravention of Section three of this Act" and insert "not being a provision failure to comply with which is punishable under that Schedule, he shall be guilty of an offence." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Darcy for not moving his Amendment because I believe that the Amendment I have put down on the Paper is one which
1000
satisfies the point he was raising. My Amendment is to subsection (3) of Clause 10. That subsection provides that if the operator of a totalisator on a dog track fails to comply with the conditions set out in the First Schedule the operation of the totalisator shall be deemed to be a contravention of Clause 3 of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Darcy was good enough to draw attention to the fact that this provision was somewhat unsatisfactory, as it did not make clear when the operation of a totalisator on a dog track, which, owing to a contravention of the provisions of the First Schedule had become unlawful, would again become lawful. The Amendment which I have ventured to put down is intended to obviate this difficulty. Certain offences under the Schedule are punishable as therein mentioned. As regards a "breach of conditions" this is now (by the Amendment) made directly an offence, without reference to Clause 3. The effect is that the operator of a totalisator who contravenes any of those conditions is guilty of an offence, but the operation of the totalisator itself does not become unlawful.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert ("not being a provision failure to comply with which is punishable under that Schedule he shall be guilty of an offence").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14:
Prohibition of betting with young persons.
14.—(1) If on any track—

(a) any bookmaker or commission agent has any betting, transaction with a person apparently under, or known to him to be under, the age of seventeen years: or

(b) any person engaged in operating a totalisator has by means thereof any betting transaction with a person apparently under, or known to him to be under, the age of seventeen years.

then, in the first case, that bookmaker or commission agent and, in the second case, the occupier of the track on which the totalisator is set up, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Upon a charge under this section in respect of a person apparently under the age of seventeen years, it shall be a defence to prove that, at the time of the alleged offence, he had in fact attained that age.
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "seventeen"

1001
and insert "eighteen". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the same Amendment that I put down in the Committee stage and which the noble Marquess kindly said he would consider between that stage and the Report stage. I understand His Majesty's Government are now prepared to accept the Amendment, and perhaps, if that is the case, I need not take up time by again stating the reasons for it.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("eighteen").—(Lord Sanderson.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am glad to accept the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, the next three Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 35, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("eighteen")
Page 12, line 39, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(2) If any person employs on any track for the purposes of his business as a bookmaker or commission agent, or in connection with the operation of a totalisator, a person apparently under, or known to him to be under, the age of eighteen years, he shall be guilty of an offence.")
Page 12, line 41, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("eighteen").—(Lord Sanderson.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15:
Revocation of licences.
15.—(1) A licensing authority may at any time, after giving to the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard, revoke a licence in respect of a track in their licensing area—
(c) if on a report made to them by the accountant appointed under the First Schedule to this Act, or upon a refusal of that accountant to give such a certificate as is mentioned in the said Schedule, they are satisfied that any totalisator on the track has been maintained or operated otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that Schedule; or
and, if they revoke a licence, shall forthwith send notice of the revocation by post
1002
to the holder of the licence and to the chief officer of Police.
(2) The holder of a licence which has been revoked under this section 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 revocation is given to him by the licensing authority.
In any case arising under this subsection the notice of appeal shall be given to the licensing authority and to the clerk of the peace.
(3) Where a licensing authority revoke a licence under this section, then, until the time within which notice of an appeal under this 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.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH) moved, in subsection (1) to leave out paragraph (c) and insert "(c) if the operator of arty totalisator on the track has been convicted under subsection (3) of Section ten of this Act of any offence in connection with that totalisator; or." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause as it stands provides that a licensing authority may upon hearing the party concerned revoke his licence under certain circumstances, and one of those circumstances is that if on a report made to them by the accountant appointed under the First Schedule, or upon a refusal of the accountant to give such a certificate as is mentioned in the said Schedule, they are satisfied that any totalisator on the track has been maintained or operated otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of that Schedule. The Amendment I am seeking to introduce is to leave out that paragraph and insert in its place:
"if the operation of any totalisator on the track has been convicted under subsection (3) of Section ten of this Act of any offence in connection with that totalisator; or"
It may appear at first sight that this Amendment restricts the authority of the licensing body to revoke a licence. I think, as a matter of fact, if your Lordships will look at it carefully, you will see that it does nothing of the kind.
The reason is this. As the clause stands at this moment your Lordships will

1003
see that unless it can be established that an offence has been committed you cannot proceed under this clause. A licensing body has to be satisfied that a totalisator on the track has been maintained or operated otherwise than in accordance with the provision of the First Schedule. These words are practically a re-enactment of another portion of the Bill where you find that it becomes a criminal offence under Clause 10 if you maintain or operate a totalisator contrary to the provisions of the Bill. In those circumstances it becomes quite clear that under either the amended paragraph which I am asking your Lordships to agree to or under the clause as it is at present drawn, you must have a criminal offence committed before the licensing authority have any jurisdiction to deal with the point. They have to be satisfied, to use the words of the Bill, that a criminal offence has been committed. If they are satisfied that a criminal offence has been committed, it is clear that that criminal offence must be either established or negatived. If that criminal offence can be established the criminal in question can be convicted.
I take it that the purpose of the clause is to ensure that an additional check should be placed on the improper operation of the totalisator. It comes into operation only when the operator, as opposed to the occupier, who is not necessarily the same person, has been guilty of a criminal offence, punishable in virtue of the subsection or under the Schedule. It follows therefore that no action can be taken under this clause unless a state of affairs has arisen under which the operator can and ought to be prosecuted. The sanction of this clause, however, is against the occupier of the track, who may be wholly innocent and who may even be unaware that any offence has in fact been committed at all. I feel that your Lordships will consider that where a person is to be proceeded against for the fault of another it is a matter of importance that the primary offender should not escape unscathed, and that therefore whenever this clause is brought into operation there should be a criminal prosecution of the real offender. This involves a trial in a court of law where the question of whether an offence has or has not been committed can be authoritatively settled and the guilt of the per-
1004
son who has been proceeded against established or negatived.
If it has been judicially determined that no offence has been committed, it is obviously wrong that the occupier of the track, who has never been suggested as guilty of the offence which it has been now established never took place at all, should yet be made amenable to a jurisdiction that depends upon an offence having been committed. If on the other hand a conviction is secured, why should the county council enquire into the question of whether there has been an offence? Why should it be asked to perform a task which has already been performed by the best possible tribunal? The purpose of this Amendment is partly to lighten the burdens of the county council by avoiding a double inquiry into the question of whether or not an offence has been committed. If your Lordships accept this Amendment the county council will merely have to satisfy themselves that there has been a conviction, and then apply their mind to whether or not the circumstances of the case are such that as far as the occupier of the track is concerned they ought to take any action.
In my submission that is the only inquiry they need take upon themselves. It is an inquiry that they are peculiarly suited to undertake and in my submission it is unnecessary and inadvisable to complicate it by adding an inquiry as to the guilt or innocence of another, an inquiry for which they have no special qualifications and one which of necessity must be conducted elsewhere in any event, and conducted by a tribunal that is peculiarly well qualified for the purpose. This Amendment is one that I feel will have the sympathy of your Lordships as it departs by not one whit from the intention of this paragraph as it was originally drafted. It relieves no one of any responsibility placed upon them by the clause, and it increases in no way the expense; but it does in my opinion facilitate and cheapen the proceedings and it avoids the necessity of a double inquiry. It also ensures that where one man is proceeded against for another man's fault the primary offender shall not escape unscathed.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, leave out paragraph (c) and insert ("if the operator of any totalisator on the track has been convicted under

1005
subsection (3) of Section ten of this Act of any offence in connection with that totalisator; or").—(Lord Darcy (de Knayth)).
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 15 empowers the licensing authority to revoke a licence in respect of a track if, on a report made to them by the accountant or upon a refusal of the accountant to give a certificate to the effect that satisfactory statements of account have been submitted to him by the operator and that the accounts are complete and accurate and that the totalisator has been maintained in proper working order and properly operated, they are satisfied that any totalisator has been maintained or operated otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule. The Amendment proposes to delete this paragraph and to substitute for it a provision which would empower the licensing authority to revoke a licence in respect of an improperly operated totalisator only if the operator of the totalisator has been convicted of an offence in respect of its operation.
The noble Lord's Amendment instead of simplifying the Bill would unduly restrict the powers of the licensing authority and as a result would weaken the safeguards provided in the Bill designed to secure the proper operation of the totalisator. I think your Lordships will recognise that cases may arise where an accountant will not feel justified in giving the certificate referred to in paragraph 8 of the First Schedule, either because he has not received accurate accounts or because he is not satisfied with the operation of the totalisator; but if the Amendment were accepted it would be impossible for the local authority to revoke the licence unless the operator had committed One of the offences specified in the Bill. The essential part of the scheme of supervision over the operation of the totalisator proposed in the Bill is the check to be exercised by the accountant and his technical adviser over the detailed and day-to-day working of the totalisator. The certificate to be given by the accountant or any report which he may submit to the licensing authority is the material on which the licensing authority will have to rely in exercising their function of general supervision. The Amendment of my noble friend will make nugatory this scheme of control. The licensing authority would be placed in a
1006
very invidious position on receiving an unsatisfactory report from the accountant if they were unable to take any action unless it was possible to secure the conviction of the operator of some offence. I think your Lordships will see that the Amendment would unduly restrict the powers of the licensing authority and would mean that a totalisator could be carried on although it was being carried on in an unsatisfactory manner, and the licensing authority would have no authority because they could not secure the conviction of the operator. On these grounds I regret that the Amendment cannot be accepted.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and my two subsequent Amendments practically go together. They arise from an undertaking which the noble Marquess gave on the first day of the Committee stage when he said that he would look into the question of an appeal. In the Bill as it stands now this subsection permits an appeal to the Court of Quarter Session on revocation of a licence. I do not know, now that the new licensing authority has been decided upon, whether Quarter Sessions would be quite the right body to which an appeal should be made. It would be rather like appealing from Lord Eldon in Chancery to Lord Eldon in the House of Lords. So many people on the standing joint committee would be the chief people at Quarter Sessions. For the sake of uniformity it would seem better, if there is an appeal upon an application for a licence or upon an application for the renewal of a licence, that the appeal should go to the Home Secretary. That principle is founded upon the Road Traffic Act of 1930 and the Town Planning Act of 1932. The appeal lies in the first case to the Minister of Transport and in the second case to the Minister of Health. In this case when we are deciding who is to deal with the matter it has to be remembered that the matter of roads is one question, that of Police another, and the condition under which a totalisator is to be worked another. Therefore I suggest that the appeal should be given to the Home Secretary in all three cases. The important cases will be those on renewal and on revoca-

1007
tion of licences. In the case of revocation of licences there is already power for appeal, and I suggest for consideration that it would be better to have the Home Secretary rather than Quarter Sessions now that an alteration has been made in the licensing authority.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 1, leave out subsection 2.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, as the noble Lord has told us, this Amendment refers to the question of an appeal. The noble Lord during the Committee stage moved an Amendment, which was subsequently withdrawn, giving an appeal to Quarter Sessions from the refusal of the licensing authority to grant a licence. The noble Lord has abandoned that proposal in favour of the present one because, as he has told us, he considers that an appeal could not properly lie from a standing joint committee (who may be the licensing authority if the county council delegate their functions to them) to Quarter Sessions. He therefore proposes instead an appeal to the Home Secretary. Under the Bill, as it stands at present, no machinery is provided for an appeal against the refusal of the licensing authority to grant a licence, but there is an appeal to Quarter Sessions against the decision of the licensing authority to revoke a licence.
There is a strong presumption that, if this Amendment were accepted, an appeal would be lodged in every instance in which a licence was refused. The result would be that the Home Secretary, who is to be given unfettered power in the exercise of his appellate function, would become the de facto licensing authority. It certainly would be most unsatisfactory that questions which are essentially local questions, such as the preservation of amenities, should be decided by the Central Government. The considerations which should determine whether or not a licence ought to be granted are mainly considerations relating to local amenities and to the health and comfort of local inhabitants. The weight to be attached in any particular locality to these considerations seems to be a matter for the local responsible authority and no other person seems to have the requisite qualifications to sit in judgment on the decision of the local authority.
1008
The case of a revocation of a licence stands on a different footing. In this class of case the Bill recognises that considerations of a judicial nature may arise and it accordingly provides in Clause 15 for an appeal to Quarter Sessions. Appellate functions of a judicial character ought not to be imposed on the Central Government. In the view of the Government the scheme of the Bill is right and there does not seem to be any insuperable objection in principle to granting an appeal from the decision of a standing joint committee (if the licensing functions are delegated to them by a county council) to Quarter Sessions in the case of the revocation of a licence.
The proposal which the noble Lord has put forward that there should be an appeal to the Home Secretary, he supports on the analogy of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, under which in certain circumstances there is an appeal to the Minister of Health. But this analogy is not a good one. That Act confers a right of appeal to the Minister of Health in cases where permission for development of land is refused or is allowed subject to conditions during the preparation of a planning scheme. The justification for making the Minister of Health the appellate authority in certain cases under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, is that the Minister of Health is also the authority charged with the duty of approving a planning scheme before it can become operative, and that as development undertaken during the period of preparation of a scheme should conform with such of the proposals of the planning authority as are likely to be accepted by the Minister when the scheme itself is submitted to him for approval, it is essential that the authority to decide the appeals and approve the schemes under the Act should be one and the same.
The noble Lord referred also to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which on certain questions gives an appeal to the Minister of Transport, but I am given to understand that that is not a good precedent either. Under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, licences for public service vehicles are granted by Commissioners appointed by the Minister of Transport, and there is an appeal to the Minister of Transport from a decision of the Com-

1009
missioners. The section in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which provides for an appeal from Commissioners appointed by the Minister to that Minister is no precedent for an appeal from a local authority, the members of which are locally elected, to the Home Secretary. There was another point raised by the noble Lord, I believe in relation to petrol-filling stations, in regard to which there is an appeal to the Minister of Transport, but I am given to understand that that appeal is on questions of safety, and on questions of safety alone.
I would venture to add that if any licensing authority exercised its functions in an improper manner any aggrieved party would have the right under Common Law to apply to the High Court for a mandamus and the decision of the licensing authority would then come under the review of the High Court. The view which I am venturing to put forward on behalf of the Government is that the Home Secretary cannot be asked to perform functions which are proper to local authorities, and that in so far as any exercise of their narrowly defined functions by local authorities in an improper manner is concerned those aggrieved must be left to their Common Law remedy of an application to the High Court. I hope the answer which I have given will satisfy the noble Lord. I think on reflection he will see that the Home Secretary is not the proper authority to whom an appeal should lie in this case. I am therefore bound to resist the Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Amendment and interpretation of Racecourse Betting Act, 1928]:
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) The percentage of the moneys staked which may be deducted under paragraph (3) of Section three of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, may be a percentage of the whole or any part of such moneys."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment adds one more Amendment of the Racecourse Betting Act. 1928, to those which already appear in the Bill. I think perhaps, as the person who was responsible for that measure when it
1010
came before your Lordships' House, I ought to apologise for the fact that it has needed so much amendment, but if your Lordships remember that the subject with which that measure dealt was an entirely new one to Parliamentary draftsmen, and if you also remember that the Bill was expanded to (I think) more than twenty times its original size, and that that expansion took place during a very stormy passage through the Standing Committee of the other House, I think your Lordships may perhaps agree that it is really rather surprising that six years working of that Act should not have necessitated greater changes than those your Lordships have been asked to make.
The difficulty with which my present Amendment is designed to deal is this. It sometimes happens that there is so much unanimity regarding the probable result of a race that practically all the money is betted on one horse. If that happens and if the favourite in fact wins, it is clear that the people who have backed it will get back very little except the money which they have themselves put into the pool, and if, as the Act in its present form ordains, the deduction to be taken by the people who run the totalisator has to be made from the whole pool, there may even be not enough left to pay back to the people who have backed the horse the money which they themselves have put in. The Racecourse Betting Control Board desire to be able to do that, and they are quite prepared to forego part of their revenue on such an occasion. It is with that object that I ask your Lordships to allow this Amendment to be inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 15, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I understand from what the noble Lord has said that the Racecourse Betting Control Board have been advised that in view of the wording of Section 3 of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, they have no power to waive their deduction in cases such as those of which the noble Lord has spoken in moving his Amendment. The Government therefore are willing to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Interpretation of Part 1.
18.—(1) In this Part of this Act the following expressions have, unless the context otherwise requires, the meanings hereby assigned to them:—
"bookmaker" means any person who, whether on his own account or as servant or agent to any other person, carries on, whether occasionally or regularly, the business of receiving or negotiating bets, or who in any manner holds himself out, or permits himself to be held out in any manner, as a person who receives or negotiates bets, and 'bookmaking' shall be construed accordingly; so, however, that a person shall not be deemed to be a bookmaker by reason of the fact that, while engaged in operating a totalisator, he receives bets from persons desiring to bets by means of that totalisator, and the operating of a totalisator shall be deemed not to be bookmaking;
"licensing area" means the area over which a licensing authority has jurisdiction;
"Quarter Sessions area" means the area within which a Court of Quarter Sessions has jurisdiction;
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (1), in the definition of "bookmaker," after "bets" ["receiving or negotiating bets"] to insert "or conducting pari mutuel or pool betting operations." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the term "bookmaker" includes bookmakers who conduct only office totalisator betting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 33, after ("bets") insert ("or conducting pari mutuel or pool betting operations").—(The Marques of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 36, after ("bets") insert ("or conducts such operations").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the next Amendment is a drafting Amendment, to make it clear that a person shall not be deemed to be a bookmaker by reason only of the fact
1012
that he operates or is employed in operating a totalisator.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 39, leave out from ("reason") to ("totalisator") in line 41, and insert ("only of the fact that he operates, or is employed in operating a").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE or THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE or THAME moved, in subsection (1), in the definition of "licensing area," to leave out "has" and insert "have." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make the grammar of the Bill consistent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 17, leave out ("has") and insert ("have").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: This is a similar Amendment in the definition of "Quarter Sessions area."
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 37, leave out ("has") and insert ("have").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21:
Exemption of small lotteries incidental to certain entertainments.
21.—(1) A lottery promoted as an incident of an entertainment to which this section applies shall he deemed not to be an unlawful lottery, but the conditions specified in the next succeeding subsection shall be observed in connection with the promotion and conduct of the lottery, and, if any of those conditions is broken, every person concerned in the promotion or conduct of the lottery shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge.
(2) The conditions referred to in the preceding subsection are that—
(a) the whole proceeds of the entertainment (including the proceeds of the lottery) after deducting all expenses, not being expenses incurred in connection with the lottery, shall be devoted to purposes other than private gain;
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out "all expenses, not being expenses incurred in connection with the lottery" arid insert "the expenses of the entertainment, excluding all expenses incurred in connection with the lottery other than expenses incurred in printing

1013
tickets." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Bill as it stands makes no provision for any deduction being made from the proceeds of small lotteries promoted at bazaars and sales of work in respect of any expenses incurred in running the lottery. During the Committee stage the Duke of Atholl suggested that the expenses incurred in the printing of tickets for a bazaar lottery should be allowed to be deducted, and I undertook on behalf of the Government to introduce an Amendment at this stage which would allow the expenses incurred in the printing of tickets for bazaar raffles to be deducted from the proceeds. This Amendment gives effect to that undertaking.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 11, leave out from ("deducting") to ("shall") in line 12 and insert ("the expenses of the entertainment, excluding all expenses incurred in connection with the lottery other than expenses incurred in printing tickets").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I feel I should be grateful to the noble Marquess, and I am grateful to him, for having prevailed upon the Government to allow expenses of printing tickets to be charged for bazaars, sales of work, fêtes and other entertainments of a similar character, as I raised the matter in Committee. As the tickets in question usually consist of cloak room tickets, or ordinary raffle books, I feel that the Home Office, as a great and important Department of State, have not taken undue risks. The whole clause very obviously refers to small entertainments like church bazaars, and so forth, and I really cannot see why, after having left the church hall, where the bazaar is being held, in order to go to lunch at the vicarage, the curate should not be allowed to sell some tickets to the supporters of the church who may be there during lunch. The whole thing seems so petty to me, and worthy of a kindergarten rather than of a Bill of this sort.
The whole idea, I understand, is to prevent some wily Ishmaelite from running a bogus bazaar and making many thousands of pounds profit out of it; but you would have thought that as none of the prizes are to be money prizes, and as the whole of the proceeds of the entertainment, less printing, including the proceeds of the lottery, are to go to purposes other than private gain, the aforesaid
1014
Ishmaelite would not have much interest in the whole proceeding. To my mind it would have been very much simpler to have said that if any bazaar, entertainment or fête wished to hold lotteries it should apply to the local Police for a, licence under the general provisions of this clause, which should not be unreasonably withheld, and which should cost, say, one shilling. The promoters would then be bound by the provisions of the licence, and no licence would be granted for anything that did not come within this clause; but I suppose the reason for not issuing a licence is that certain people might call it licensing vice, whereas if no licence is issued what would otherwise be vicious can be safely conducted at a church bazaar.
As it is, many of the best supporters of these functions do not attend them. The last place in the world they want to go to is the venue of the business, and this cuts out quite a good source of income for a good cause. It seems to me that the authorities have been stampeded into a state of undue nervousness regarding what I may term hypothetical lottery bandits, and are in consequence going to penalise honest people in this country, whose numbers I maintain are still in excess of those of the dishonest ones, though I am not prepared to prognosticate for the future if this Bill passes as it stands. Anyhow, I am very grateful to the noble Marquess for his efforts on behalf of my suggested Amendment, though I still repeat that it would have been much simpler to have a cheap, licence for the purpose.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 22, to insert the following new clause:
"This Part of this Act shall not apply to the securities of British, Colonial or Foreign Governments, municipalities or companies which bear a fixed rate of interest and which are, in whole or in part, subject to repayment by drawings at a premium."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the first place I would draw your Lordships' particular attention to the definition of "ticket" which appears in Clause 26 at page 22, line 33:
"'Ticket' includes, in relation to any lottery or proposed lottery, any document evidencing the claim of a person to participate in the chances of the lottery."

1015
There is no definition of what a lottery is in the Bill itself, but according to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary it is this:
"In Webster's Dictionary a lottery is defined to be, 'A distribution of prizes by lot or chance'—and a similar definition is given in Johnson. Such definitions are, in our opinion, correct; and in such sense we think the word is used in s. 2, 42 G. 3, c. 119 (per Hawkins, J., in delivering judgment of the Court, Taylor v. Smetten, 52, L.J.M.C. 101; 11 Q.B.D. 207). Accordingly it was held in that case that selling packets of good tea at prices worth the money, but in each packet of which (as publicly and truly stated) was a coupon entitling the purchaser to receive the prize (whatever it might turn out to be) mentioned on such coupon, was a 'lottery' within the Statute."
As your Lordships may be aware, many foreign Governments, such as the Argentine, Brazilian and Chilean Governments, have from time to time issued bonds at a discount, which are subject to periodical drawings by lot for redemption at par. Indeed our own Victory Bonds, issued at 85, are subject to periodical drawings at par. I submit that these bonds would come within the definition of the word "ticket" as being "a document evidencing the claim of a person to participate in the chances of a lottery." Surely a drawing by lot is a lottery. It follows that any newspaper which publishes the lists of the results of such drawings, or a prospectus inviting subscriptions to such an issue, will be guilty of an offence, or a stockbroker or banker who buys or sells these securities for a client will also be punishable.
Now let us pass to another form of investment which is very popular in France—namely, premium bonds. They are generally issued by banks, and are usually of 500 francs denomination, bearing a low rate of interest and subject to periodical drawings of various prizes, sometimes as much as 1,000,000 francs for a 500 francs bond. I do not think the noble Marquess can say that that is not a lottery, even if he says that our Government bonds are not. I admit that the Press in this country does not publish the results of the drawings of these foreign premium bonds, but the French Press does, and therefore it will be an offence under Clause 21 for anybody to sell or distribute, or to have in his possession for the purpose of sale or distribution in this country, any French newspaper on the days on which the results of drawings are published, or on which a prospectus
1016
appears inviting subscriptions to an issue. Again, I think that any stockbroker or banker who was given instructions to buy or sell these securities in this country would be liable to punishment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 22 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend is right or wrong, because my attention has only just been called to his Amendment; but if he is right it is a very serious state of affairs, because there are, or have been, cases where loans have been issued below £100 and are redeemable at a certain time either at £100 or possibly at a premium, or redeemable by drawings during the existence of the loan. If those bonds are now to be considered illegal a very serious state of affairs will arise. I cannot myself believe that my noble friend is right; but, knowing how accurate he generally is, I thought, as one having had many years experience in the City of London, I ought to utter this warning note.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am not clear what my noble friend's intention is. His Amendment is open to the construction that he wishes definitely to legalise what are commonly known as "premium bonds" or "lottery bonds"; if this is his intention, the Government have not any idea of entertaining such a proposition. In 1917, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to enquire into and report on the desirability or otherwise of raising money for the purpose of the War by the issue of premium bonds. The Select Committee defined premium bonds as "bonds repayable after a fixed term of years at par, plus a moderate rate of compound interest, and having the feature that a certain number should be drawn each half year for payment at a premium over and above the issue price." The Committee were advised that, as lotteries were illegal, no issue of premium bonds which involved an element of chance could be made without the authority of an Act of Parliament. The Committee were impressed by the evidence which they received as to the existence of opposition to any State action which might be held to introduce an element of chance in our national

1017
finance, and the Committee decided to advise against the legalisation of premium bonds. Premium bonds are in substance lotteries, and it would be quite inconsistent for Parliament on the one hand to re-enact the existing prohibition against lotteries (other than certain small harmless lotteries) and on the other hand to legalise types of bonds which cannot be distinguished from lotteries, and which could be promoted on the largest scale.
On the other hand, my noble friend may be thinking of the bona fide loans which public, municipal and local authorities and commercial and industrial companies issue to the public for administrative or business purposes, but which, as a matter of financial convenience or expediency, they wish to repay, not in one lump sum at the final date of maturity, but partly by instalments spread over a period of years—a course which necessitates some method of drawing in order to select the bonds, debentures or stock to be repaid at any particular date. The Bill does not alter the definition of "lottery" which has been accepted by the Courts for many years—namely, a distribution of prizes by chance or lot, and no instance is known of a bona fide loan of the character suggested being challenged on the ground that it is a lottery merely because of the periodical drawings. I think that ought to satisfy my noble friend.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh yes, that is so.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Obviously when such a loan is issued, if the price of issue, rate of interest and price of repayment and interim redemption approximate to the general estimate of market values, it is impossible to foretell whether a person whose bond is drawn early will thereby get a prize (an essential feature in a lottery), or will draw a, loss. It is thought that in the future as in the past a Court will have no difficulty in deciding, having regard to all the circumstances of the issue, whether such an issue is a bona fide loan issue or is in effect the promotion of a lottery, but the Government have not yet definitely made up their mind as to whether any provision to deal with this matter is necessary. It may, however, be said, and this is perhaps what my noble friend has in mind, that there may be a danger of vexatious proceedings being taken in
1018
respect of such loans, the fear of which might hamper bona fide financial operations. This aspect of the case is also being considered by the Government. My noble friend's Amendment, if intended to safeguard these bona fide issues, shows the difficulty of drafting a satisfactory definition, for it merely relates to securities which bear "a fixed rate of interest"; 1 per cent. would satisfy this definition and yet would enable a lottery promoter, disguised as a limited company, to make a large profit out of a 100 year loan and to pay handsome prizes to few fortunate holders—even if he had any intention that the company should "live" for 100 years and then repay the loan. If my noble friend has not overlooked this point then it seems clear that he definitely wishes to legalise premium or lottery bonds and, as I have stated, the Government cannot entertain this proposal.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I understand from my noble friend that the Bill, as now drawn, would not apply to bona fide loans which have been issued in years gone by with the provision that at the end of a certain time they shall be repaid and in the meantime a portion should be paid off by drawings. I may say I am strongly against premium bonds, but that is a different thing from what I understand might arise under the clause of my noble friend Lord Bertie. But I understand that my fears are groundless or, at any rate, that my noble friend will consult financial authorities as to what the effect of the clause really is.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Marquess gave your Lordships to understand that the whole question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, is under close examination, and that seems to be very desirable after what we have heard from the two noble Lords who sit behind the Government. May I put this to the noble Marquess? Supposing some Irish philanthropist floated a loan for the further support of the Irish hospitals (the noble Marquess having successfully cut off their present sources of extraneous revenue) and supposing this loan was issued at 25 or 15 for the £100 or 100 shillings share, and that there were drawings to redeem at, say, 125. It is the same case that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, cited, but rather more exaggerated. It is for a good cause—

1019
the upkeep of the Irish hospitals. Suppose it were sold in the ordinary way through brokers in this country. From what the noble Marquess has said so far that sounds to me a perfectly legal and genuine loan. The only safeguard is the market value, but who is to say what the market value is of a loan to Irish hospitals? It would appeal to many philanthropic people and people of Irish descent. The matter is under further examination as the noble Marquess told us, but I think the case is worth stating.
This also touches the whole question of Stock Exchange dealings. Things are very much better owing to greater control by the Stock Exchange Committee at the present time, but the tremendous gambling which went on prior to 1929 and which has been going on quite recently in certain classes of mining shares is notorious. The noble Lord has told your Lordships of the fearful evils of bazaar lotteries and the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, spoke of the Ishmaelite who might be tempted by a church bazaar sweepstake and make a dishonest sum in that way. But the Government really, with great respect, are ignoring a great source of gambling that has not only ruined a great many gullible people, but has inflicted great mischief on British industry. I will only cite one case, and that is the cotton industry which, owing to the disgraceful gambling and the foolish, stupid, and wicked flotations in the post-War boom, has suffered immense mischief ever since. All that the Government leave alone. I have been waiting for an opportunity to make these very few remarks, and am glad that this Amendment has given it to me. Here we are dealing with a form of gambling which in the opinion of the Government does immense harm, but there are other forms of gambling that do immense harm, and these we leave untouched. I am glad to hear, however, that the matter is under consideration.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Marquess has agreed to consider this matter thoroughly, but perhaps he will allow me to see him or his advisers in order to discuss the matter fully. At this late hour I do not want to take up the time of the House if the noble Marquess will do that.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am sure I shall be very glad to consult with the noble Viscount, but I must make it plain I cannot accept the Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Restriction on certain prize competitions]:
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) During the period of five years after the passing of this Act nothing in this section shall prevent the conduct of a competition such as is referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section by a body corporate established before the passing of this Act for a charitable purpose which satisfies the Secretary of State that the greater part of its income during the period of five years prior to the passing of this Act was derived from prize competitions."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage I moved an Amendment that would have enabled charities organising competitions to ascertain before offering their wares to the public whether their schemes were legal or not, but the noble Marquess informed your Lordships that only the Law Courts could decide such matters. Charities usually do not wish to do anything illegal, and cannot afford law costs. For instance, the British Charities Association has for ten years satisfactorily conducted prize competitions. The entrance fees of 6d. to 5s. have enabled them to pass large sums over annually to many hospitals and other charities—900 in all in this country—and none of these competitions has been challenged in the Law Courts. The law is about to be altered by this Bill. To keep within the law you must make competitors think more than before, but, in conducting competitions for the million, you must not make the skill element so complicated that the great majority will not send in their entrance shillings and the collecting scheme will be a failure. There must be an element of chance if you have to award prizes among hundreds of thousands of entrants. This Bill will restrict the element of chance, but how much it does so will only be decided in the Law Courts during the next few years. Newspapers, great corporations, etc., have resources that they can spend on law costs, but charities honestly conducted should not run the risk of wasting money in that way.
My Amendment would leave the cases in this matter to be decided in the Courts by those newspapers, etc., and during the few years while what is legal and what is not legal in this matter is being mapped out, charities that satisfy the Secretary of State that they have been conducted satisfactorily and that their income has largely been made from prize competitions shall be allowed to continue working under the old law as regards the degree of skill necessary. Long experience has taught those who have run competitions how to keep within the law, but bodies corporate working for charity cannot afford the risk to their resources of entering upon the new uncharted sea after the Bill is law, neither can they afford to put their organisation into cold storage during the years that newspapers and others working for private profit are, by expensive lawsuits, defining the law. It is not fair to voluntary workers to subject them to the ignominy of a case in Court and the shafts of clever counsel endeavouring to make fun of them. I have been conducting hospital publicity for over thirty years, and I know of no more effective means of providing such publicity than by circulating such information in, say, a million circulars that announce a prize competition. Moreover, the 6d. entrance fees pay not only for the propaganda but provide the profit for the charity. I an not wedded to this particular form of Amendment if the noble Marquess will indicate some alteration of it that will suit him and yet enable the properly conducted charities to work on as before till the new law becomes more defined by the precedents that are created in the Law Courts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Luke.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, no one can quarrel with the noble Lord because we all know the worthy object he has in view. Clause 24 (b) prohibits any competition (conducted in or through any newspaper or in connection with any trade or business or the sale of any article to the public) success in which does not depend to a substantial degree upon the exercise of skill. The noble Lord proposes that notwithstanding this prohibition a charitable body should be allowed to conduct such competitions for a period of five years,
1022
provided that it can prove that during the past five years the greater part of its income was derived from prize competitions. In form, the Amendment is unnecessary, as there is nothing in the clause directly affecting the activities of charitable bodies which conduct competitions. No doubt, my noble friend has in mind competitions conducted by charitable bodies through the medium of newspapers, and his intention is to give a moratorium of five years to charitable bodies (such as British Charities Association, of which the noble Lord is the Chairman) from the prohibition against newspaper prize competitions.
The justification for giving a five year moratorium for existing dog tracks is that the erection of these tracks has involved considerable capital outlay, and the Government did not think it would be right to expose these tracks to the risk of being immediately closed down. No such consideration arises in the case of prize competitions conducted by charitable bodies. Newspaper prize competitions which do not contain a substantial degree of skill are being prohibited by the Bill because they are substantially lotteries, and are open to all the objections to which lotteries on a large scale are open. The House has already decided that large lotteries, even although promoted on behalf of hospitals or charities cannot be allowed. I therefore regret that I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment which would allow competitions providing that some of the proceeds went to charity.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 28:
Penalties for offences under this Act and forfeitures.
28.—(1) A person guilty of an offence under Section one, Section two or Section three, or tinder any section contained in Part II of this Act shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and in the case of a second or any subsequent conviction for an offence under the same section to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, and in the case of a second or any subsequent conviction for an offence under the same section to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to a fine not

1023
exceeding seven hundred and fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.

LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH) had given Notice of two Amendments to subsection (1)—to leave out "or" ["Section two or Section three"] and, after "Section three," to insert "or under subsection (3) of Section ten." The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments were originally intended to be consequential on one which I have not moved, but, as the noble Marquess has moved an Amendment which dealt with the same matter, I think the Amendment might almost be regarded as consequential upon his Amendment, the point being that the alteration in the clause was never intended to alter the penalties to which the person who infringed it became liable in proper circumstances. I have, however, had it suggested to me that it would be proper merely to move to insert "or under Section ten," and with your Lordships' approval I would ask leave to move it in that form.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 16, leave out the first ("or") and after ("three") insert ("or under Section ten").—(Lord Darcy (de Knayth)).
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 29 (Application to Scotland):
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand the noble Marquess accepts this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 16, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 20, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, before we leave this clause I want to remind the House that I raised a question with regard to standing joint committees not existing in Scotland. I have since had an opportunity of looking more closely into the Bill, and it appears to me that if Clause 29 were made effective it would probably cover all that is required so far as Scotland is concerned.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I have been asked to reply upon this clause, which deals with Scotland. I am grateful to the noble Duke for waiting for an answer to be given upon this matter. The position in the case of all Scottish licensing authorities, and in the case of English licensing authorities being councils of county boroughs, remains as it was under the Bill as amended in Committee. It is not considered practicable to make in the case of county councils in Scotland an extension of the power of delegation similar to that which has been made in the case of county councils in England. There is no standing joint committee in Scotland and there is no body to which the licensing functions under the Bill could suitably be delegated.
The suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, in Committee, that a suitable body existed in the licensing courts appointed under the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903. This suggestion has been carefully considered, but it has been found impossible to adopt it. The licensing areas vary from census to census, and differ entirely from the licensing areas proposed by the Bill. If, therefore, the licensing authorities under the Bill were empowered to delegate their functions to licensing courts, these functions would become exercisable in a large number of separate areas, many of them very small in size, with the result that the risk of continuous betting facilities being provided for the section of the population through the fixing of different "appointed days" in small adjoining areas would be increased, and this is a risk which it is one of the objects of the Bill to avoid. In addition to this grave objection, it must be remembered that the licensing court in burghs consists of the elected burgh magistrates Who are, therefore, open to all the criticisms which can be urged against local authorities so far as the granting of licences is concerned. Perhaps I may be allowed to inform the noble Duke and your Lordships that no representation against the licensing provisions of the Bill has been received from any association of local authorities in Scotland and it is understood that no exception to them is taken by any such bodies.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Provisions regulating the establishment and operation of totalisators on dog racecourses.
1. A totalisator set up under this Act on a dog racecourse shall be a mechanically or electrically operated apparatus complying with such conditions as a Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
2. The person, whether the occupier of the track or a person authorised in writing by the occupier, by whom the totalisator is operated (in this Schedule referred to as "the operator") shall distribute or cause to be distributed the whole of the moneys staked on any race or races by means of the totalisator among the persons winning bets made by means of the totalisator on that race or those races, after deducting or causing to be deducted such percentage, not exceeding three per cent., as he may from time to time determine:
Provided that—

(a) where the amount payable to a person winning a bet includes a fraction of a penny, that fraction of a penny may be retained by the operator; and

(b) the terms on which the operator invites persons to bet by means of the totalisator may include a condition entitling the operator to retain any sum payable to a person winning a bet, unless the money won on the bet is claimed within a specified time.

LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to insert at the end of paragraph 1: "Provided that the Secretary of State may permit types of apparatus not being mechanically or electrically operated for double-event pool betting." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an attempt to give some chance to the totalisator of being used with effect on the courses in any form subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. This would allow a totalisator for double-event betting to be employed in the manner in which it is used upon horse racecourses, and in which it was used upon greyhound courses. It is true that mechanical and electrical contrivances may in the future be very valuable. I do not think that they cost quite as much as I ventured on the Committee stage to suggest, but still they are extraordinarily expensive at present, and must be with their complication of machinery, and, however good they may be, they can only be operated with very considerable difficulty, at any rate at present.
In the Bill, in Clause 18 (1), the totalisator is defined as
"the contrivance for betting known as the totalisator or pari mutuel, or any other
1026
machine or instrument of betting of a like nature, whether mechanically operated or not."
That definition seems to allow the hand system, which can be controlled quite as well by the accountant as the machine system, and which can be prevented from being a fraudulent machine by overlooking. Moreover, as I have said, before, it is one that is in constant use. Then under Clause 3 it is stated that pari mutual betting must be "in accordance with the provisions of this Act which relate to totalisators on dog racecourses." When we come to the provisions for dog racecourses, we find that the apparatus must be "mechanically or electrically operated"—a contradiction in the Bill and, in practical working, very unsatisfactory. To give the pari mutuel a power and then to debar it from being used in the manner in which it is used on horse racecourses, and in which it has been used on greyhound courses, seems to be a sort of denial of the very thing you give. You give with one hand and then take away with the other. I therefore suggest that this is a reasonable Amendment. Any abuse will be prevented by putting the matter into the hands of the Home Secretary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Askwith.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the Bill proposes in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule that a totalisator set up by the occupier of a licensed dog track shall be a "mechanically or electrically operated apparatus complying with such conditions as a Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe." The Amendment proposes that for double-event pool betting the Secretary of State may permit types of apparatus which are not mechanically or electrically operated. The reason for this proposal is that double-event pools have in the past been operated manually and not through a machine; and that the expense of installing electrical or mechanical apparatus for double-event pools would be very high. It is very well known that the operation of a totalisator affords considerable scope for fraudulent practices and the object of the proposal in the Bill, that totalisators on dog tracks must be electrically or mechanically operated, is to provide safeguards against

1027
fraudulent operation. From the point of view of the prevention of fraud it makes no difference whether the bets are on single events or on double events. It is an integral part of the scheme of supervision proposed in the Bill that the totalisator should be of a mechanical or electrical type, and to waive that requirement in respect of one type of totalisator betting would make nonsense of the proposals in the Bill. The Government could not entertain the idea of legalising the use of the totalisator on dog tracks, without the requirement that the totalisator should be so constructed as to minimise the possibilities of fraud. One of the simplest measures for this purpose is to require the use of an instrument which will show at a glance the progress of the betting in respect of each competitor and the total in the pool at each stage of the betting.
I think the noble Lord will agree with me that dog racing and horse racing are not really on the same terms. The totalisator on a horse racecourse is controlled by a Board and is not operated for the benefit of the racecourse in any shape or form. The difficulty in connection with dog racing, I think the noble Lord will agree, is the possibility of fraud and the possibility of the totalisator being operated for the benefit of those responsible for the track. I think he must recognise that it is incumbent on the Government to do what they can, consistent with the primary duty of restricting betting, to see that where betting is carried on it should be carried on in the most respectable and reputable manner possible with the absence of any kind of fraud. I would like to gain the noble Lord's agreement for the statement that it is absolutely necessary for the Government to resist the Amendment which he has proposed, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I cannot at this time of the evening press my Amendment, but I must say that this paragraph of the Schedule simply prevents double-event betting which is supposed to be allowed by the Bill, and I can only stigmatise the suggestion of fraud as positively ridiculous. Tickets are sent out and are serially numbered. They are checked, and there is almost an impossibility of fraud. No fraud has
1028
been discovered that I am aware of with this type of pool on horse racing or, up to the present time, on greyhound racing. The accountant has only to check the tickets to find out any fraud. Besides that, the totalisator is practically not being run for profit. It may attract more people to the course. These pools are extremely popular and I think there will be a great deal of feeling if they are being denied to greyhound courses while they are allowed on horse racecourses. There will be a feeling that an attack is being made upon one comparatively small form of sport while other sports are not attacked.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I think I may remind the noble Lord that the remedy is in his own hands. These totalisators are capable of being worked mechanically. It is true they are expensive, but if they are so vital to dog racing they can be secured.
LORD ASKWITH: They cost a very large sum of money if they exist at all. However I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD SPEAKER (VISCOUNT MERSEY): I have three manuscript Amendments to the First Schedule from the noble Lord, Lord Askwith. Perhaps it would be convenient if I read them all. They are: First Schedule, page 27, line 16, leave out "three" in order to insert "five"; line 20, leave out "a penny" in order to insert "three pence"; lines 20 and 21, leave out "a penny" in order to insert "three pence."
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in paragraph (2), to substitute "five per cent." for "three per cent." The noble Lord said: This Amendment of which I have given private notice to the noble Marquess is n substitution for the Amendment standing on the Paper to insert "seven and one-half per cent." This question was considered on the last day of the Committee stage when the noble Marquess said there was certainly no desire on the part of the Government to be unreasonable in the matter. The matter has been gone into very carefully and it is suggested that a deduction of five per cent. with three pence, instead of a penny, for

1029
breakages would be a fair arrangement. That will not allow the totalisator to pay on all courses—nearly all—but it will, in a certain number of cases, prevent very serious loss. My noble friend the Duke of Sutherland on the Committee stage gave several instances where most serious loss would be incurred if three per cent. and a penny for breakages was adhered to. I have reason to believe that the Government view the first Amendment with a certain amount of sympathy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 16, leave out ("three") and insert ("five").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment. He has quite accurately stated the desire of the Government not to insist on 3 per cent. if it could be shown that by an increase in the percentage the Bill will be made more satisfactory to those interested in greyhound racing. I am assuming that this Amendment will satisfy all those with whom the noble Lord is connected.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I should not have put down this Amendment unless it was an Amendment that I desired to have accepted. In the event of these three Amendments being accepted, none of the members of the Society of which I have the honour to be honorary president would propose to induce those with whom they have any influence either in this House or in another place to move any other Amendment dealing with this point. When I say that, however, I am only referring to this particular point because this is not really of much use unless there is some amelioration in regard to the times of dog races and the fixity of the times now established by the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am very grateful for the statement made by the noble Lord and I need not delay the proceedings by saying more than fiat the Government accept this Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I enquire from the noble Marquess what is his calculation as to the effect of this Amendment? During the earlier stages of the Bill we were told that a 3 per cent. rake-off, if I may use the term, would drive all the tracks out of business.
1030
There was some conflict as to whether the White City or some other track of the largest and most efficient kind could survive, but there seemed to be a general opinion that the three per cent. would obliterate the smaller companies. The noble Marquess said that it was not his business to make the greyhound racing industry a profitable one; I do not think I am misrepresenting the noble Marquess. What is going to be the effect of the five per cent, with the other minor Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, is moving? I think we are entitled to know that. Is this going to enable the present greyhound racing tracks to be operated at a profit, or will it enable them just to pay their way? In other words, is the noble Marquess by this Amendment in any way subsidising those who (I think his words are) capitalise the wickedness—no, not the wickedness, but the folly—of the gambling instinct, or words to that effect? This matter is so important and there has been so much controversy about it that I think your Lordships are entitled to one or two words of explanation from the noble Marquess as to the opinion of his advisers and their calculations as to the effect which this concession will have on the industry.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I also would like to ask the noble Marquess on what basis the Government have agreed to this change. When the three per cent. deduction was first of all introduced into the Bill presumably it was assumed that that would be sufficient. Now, it has been very nearly doubled. The noble Marquess will remember a passage in the Report of the Royal Commission, which I may perhaps quote:
"The introduction of the totalisator offered a new and lucrative source of profit to existing tracks and gave a strong incentive to the creation of fresh tracks."
I have taken the trouble to consult the Stock Exchange Year Book, and I find that some of these tracks have been making profits of 30, 40, 50 and 60 per cent. and in one case 125 per cent. One of the noble Lords who spoke previously has quoted from memory a passage from the speech delivered by the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill on the Motion for Second Reading, to the effect that it was not the task of the Government to see that every track was enabled

1031
to make a profit, and I should be very grateful if the noble Marquess would tell us for what reason they have increased the percentage to be allowed.
LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that the noble Marquess, after all that he has said on this subject, has given way to the financial interests behind the greyhound racecourses. I think in the Committee stage of this Bill arid also in the debate on the Second Reading he told us that the Government had given the most careful attention to this subject and that they had convinced themselves that three per cent. was a sufficient deduction to allow from the totalisator. I cannot see what reason he can possibly adduce at this late stage of the Bill for increasing that amount to five per cent. He has really given us no reason at all. As my noble friend behind me has previously said, the noble Marquess has told the House that it is not the business of the Government to make this kind of thing a profitable business, and I cannot understand why he has gone back upon that. I think this is a very serious movement on the part of the Government. They say they are out all the time to remove opportunities of betting and not to make it a profitable business for those who wish to exploit the working people in this way; but they have departed from that and have taken a step which will more than ever put into private pockets profits made out of the gambling propensities of the people. I very much regret that the Government have accepted this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I have not always seen eye to eye with the noble Marquess who is in charge of this Bill, but I think that the last speech has quite convinced me that I should support the noble Marquess in this matter.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the point, is that the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, on the Committee stage—I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite was present then—gave some very salient figures indeed to show that very heavy losses indeed would occur even on the very biggest tracks if 3 per cent. were the percentage, with a penny breakage. As the matter has been worked out with regard to the various courses in the country, I do not suppose there are any courses which will really
1032
make a profit out of the totalisator even with the 5 per cent. and the threepence breakage, but it will prevent a lot of courses being very seriously hurt by the use of a machine which is a protection to the public, and which actually does not bring td the greyhound courses the huge profits which are talked of by various noble Lords. Greyhound courses have not been making much money lately. It may be that in the early stages a few persons did make comparatively small sums and there may have been a very few who made large sums, but at the present time it is a very narrow percentage indeed which is paid to the shareholders of the different courses and some courses have paid no dividends at all. That is the information at my disposal.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the speeches to which we have listened I think show conclusively the very difficult position in which I find myself, speaking for the Government, who are determined to do what they can in regard to this measure of which we call social reform. We find opponents in every quarter; but I sincerely hope that the experience of this Bill will not deter future Governments from turning their attention to this matter and doing what they can to save the population from the evils of gambling. We have endeavoured in a small manner in this Bill to meet the difficulties and also to clarify the law where it may be said to have been in a state which is not consistent with what the general public think it should be.
I have been asked several questions in relation to the percentage to be given to the totalisator. The noble Lord who sits opposite has a more accurate knowledge of the phraseology of my speeches than I have myself, but I think I made it quite clear to him and to the House that the Government recognise that if dog racing is to exist—and I think the country accepts the proposition that dog racing should exist—it must be able to pay its expenses. I think also that a Labour Government has been in power since dog racing came into being, and I have no recollection of any strong movement then on the part of that Government to do away with dog racing. Dog racing is in existence, and I have definitely said on behalf of the Government that it is not our proposal to destroy dog racing by

1033
some subterranean method. I said that if we believed that it was wholly inimical to the best interests of the country, and the country wished serious steps to be taken, we would have no hesitation in taking them.
We have tried to do what we believe is in the best interests of the country. Betting is going to exist no matter what steps we take to prevent it, and if dog racing is going to exist and betting is going to exist at the same time, we have come to the definite conclusion that the public expect that the totalisator should be protected for the purpose of allowing a certain portion of the public to carry out their betting through the means of the totalisator. Everybody is perfectly well aware that a machine of that description cannot be run for nothing. Certain expenses are entailed in the setting up and in the running of the totalisator. We had believed that a percentage of three per cent. would cover those expenses, and that was the premise on which we introduced this Bill. Now we have been given to understand that three per cent. is a figure on which no totalisator can be operated, and as I tried to make very clear in my opening speech on the Bill, we were desirous of accepting advice which we felt was good advice, and would be prepared to put some figure in the Bill which we believed would enable the totalisator to ceive its working expenses and leave nothing over for the profit of the promoters.
We have heard differing opinions. My noble friend on the Cross Benches told us, on reference to certain means of information, that enormous profits have been made on various dog tracks. I am bound to say that I know nothing about that. We have heard the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, in a long speech giving us very definite figures in quite a different direction. The Government, therefore, felt that it was incumbent upon them, as they have legalised the totalisator for dog tracks, to increase that three per cent., and they have taken five per cent. as the figure which they believe will meet the difficulties which we are told the running of the totalisator entails. There is no arbitrary figure from close examination of accounts, because I believe that to be quite impossible, from experience of the totalisator in other connections. We are satisfied that five per cent. will cover the expenses required to
1034
be met, and those are the reasons which I venture to give to the noble Lord in answer to the question put to me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 20, leave out ("a penny") and insert ("three pence").—(Lord Askwith.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may we have one word of explanation? It seems rather an important alteration of the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I left it to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and I hoped that your Lordships would hear from him what the Amendment was. The Amendments of the noble Lord as drafted will increase the percentage to five per cent. and the breakages to threepence.
LORD ASKWITH: I mentioned that the proposal was a double one—namely, a percentage of five per cent. and three pence breakage, and this is the second part of that proposal—namely, instead of "a penny" to insert "threepence."
LORD STRABOLGI: If I read this aright, and totalling the amount over the whole country, these are enormous sums. As the Bill is drawn, where a person winning a bet is entitled to, say, five shillings and a halfpenny the operator or the totalisator may keep the halfpenny. I have no experience of these things, and only go from reading the evidence. Now it is proposed that if a winner is entitled to receive any sum under threepence the totalisator is entitled to retain the threepence or twopence, whatever it is, and we have had no reason given us why that concession should be made. Your Lordships will be aware that this means a very large sum spread all over the country, especially when we consider that the bets on dog racing are generally in sixpences and shillings. I think some word of justification should be given, because at present it is all weighting the scales in favour of the fortunate totalisator owner, or unfortunate as the case may be, and against the punter or backer. I do not know whether this is part of the policy of the noble Marquess of discouraging betting or of making it honest when it has to be tolerated. I am sorry if I do not always quote him accurately, but I try to get the sense of what he says.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I do not often agree with the noble Lord opposite, but I think we ought to know something more about what sum of money this involves. I understand that these transactions are in very small sums indeed, and that there is a great deal of betting of a shilling or under. The difference that this Amendment makes is twopence, I presume. Out of a shilling that is a fairly large percentage, and I would like to know from some sort of calculation what sum of money it involves. On horse racecourses the sums betted are usually very considerably larger than on dog racecourses, and up to a very short time ago they actually calculated to the nearest penny. I have seen it done. I am not sure that on horse racecourses it has not been altered now, but there the unit is so very much larger than on dog racecourses, and it is going to make a very considerable difference indeed whether we limit it to a penny or to threepence. I would like to know whether the Government have any sort of figures with regard to it.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, the figure is the same as it is on horse racing. I do not accept the noble Lord's statement that on horse racing the figures are always so much larger. There are a vast number of small bets on horse races, on any course you may go to, but there are not many large bets on greyhound racecourses, because the backers are generally men of comparatively small means compared with some of those who may be engaged in horse racing. There have been on the courses threepenny breakages and complaints have not been made about that. The attempt to get a breakage of a less amount than threepence would no doubt for practical purposes involve vast quantities of coppers and cause great trouble and difficulty. As to estimating the amount over the whole country, licensed and unlicensed courses, I do not suppose there are any statistics by which any answer could be given to that. It depends upon the size of the courses, and, if they are spread over localities far separated, as they are, the one from the other, the amount is comparatively small, and makes up the difference which would otherwise be apparent on the low percentage that exists upon the greyhound totalisators as compared with the horse totalisators, where the percentage has had to be raised
1036
consecutively up to 12 per cent. before the totalisator could be made to pay.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("a penny") and insert ("three pence").—(Lord Askwith.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord has put the case before your Lordships far better than I could because he knows something about the totalisator, and I have never had a bet on the totalisator. But I am given to understand that one of the main reasons is that of convenience, which I think your Lordships will appreciate, and that is that a smaller breakage than threepence means the carrying about of an enormous quantity of coppers. I am told that this sum might roughly be said to amount to something like 1 per cent. on the total. That is what I am given to understand: it means an addition of 1 per cent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the next Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 29, line 6, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").
Page 29, line 14, leave out ("was") and insert ("were").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Can the noble Marquess give some indication as to when the Third Reading will be taken?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Leader of the House informs me that he thinks it will be on Tuesday next.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (COAL MINES) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Insurance of owners of coal mines against liability to their workmen.
(2) The exception allowed by paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection is as follows, that is to say, that the indemnity afforded by the contract of insurance need not, in the case of any injury by accident or disease resulting in incapacity for work, extend to payments of compensation in respect of the

1037
incapacity which become payable before the expiration of a period of twenty-six weeks from the date on which the incapacity begins, other than payments which are due at the time of, or become payable after the happening of any of the following events, that is to say,—
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "payments of compensation in respect of the incapacity which become payable before the expiration of a period of twenty-six weeks from the date on which the incapacity begins, other than payments which are due at the time of, or become," and to insert "any such payment of compensation in respect. of the incapacity resulting from that injury as becomes payable at a time when the incapacity has continued for not more than twenty-six weeks (whether consecutive or not.), other than a payment which is due at the time of, or becomes."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is in effect the acceptance of Lord Gainford's manuscript Amendment, which he moved on the Committee stage, and upon which the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, expressed the opinion that, owing to its technicality, it would be better if it were put in writing and brought up on the Report stage. The Bill, as it stands, permits the owner to pay the first twenty-six weeks compensation himself, with the proviso that if he goes bankrupt the insurer will assume responsibility for this period as well as for all subsequent payments. This Amendment substitutes what might be described as "incapacity weeks" for calendar weeks, in other words, it allows for those cases where a man returns to work after some weeks of incapacity and then, after an interval, is again forced to stop working because the original injury or disease recurs.
Under this Amendment the owner will be allowed to pay the first twenty-six weekly compensation payments whether the actual weeks are consecutive or not. This is, I understand, the generally accepted practice, and there seems to be no objection to incorporating it in the Bill. I may mention by way of explanation that the object of allowing the owner to carry the first twenty-six weeks payments is to permit of reduced insurance premium being obtained. I should like also to call special attention to the
1038
fact that in the event of the owner's bankruptcy the insurer (that is, the insurance company, or the mutual indemnity association) immediately assumes responsibility for all compensation payments, including the first twenty-six weeks.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("to") to ("payable") in line 16 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rockley.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and to those who are interested in the Bill for having accepted what was, after all, only a manuscript Amendment on the Committee stage. It carries out the wishes of the mutual benefit associations, it will save a great deal of expense and trouble, and it will carry on the existing practice.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation]:
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY moved to add to the clause:
"(2) For the purposes of this Act, a workman shall be deemed to be employed for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at a coal mine, if, and only if,—

(a) he is employed at the mine; or

(b) being a person normally employed at the mine, he is temporarily employed elsewhere by the owner of the mine; or

(c) he is employed elsewhere than at the mine by the owner either in repairing the mining plant or in any such other work as is commonly done at a coal mine."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in accordance with a promise given on the Committee stage I beg to move this Amendment. It defines quite definitely the workmen who will come under the Bill, and carries out the promise for further consideration which I gave on the Committee stage. Perhaps I may add that I felt some surprise that Lord Gainford thought it necessary to press the matter to a Division. The difficulty is to find some words which will define not only the actual whereabouts of an accident but the nature of the employment of the man who suffers in it.
The words of my Amendment make it clear beyond question that the following categories of employees must be insured by the owner: By paragraph (a) all men must be insured who are employed at

1039
the mine, by whomsoever employed, whether by the owner or by a contractor. The words "at the mine" have a precedent in the Coal Mines Act, 1911. This provision now includes the clerical staff employed in any office at the mine, but not elsewhere, for instance, not in London, or Newcastle, or Leeds, or York, or elsewhere. In paragraph (b), "a person normally employed at the mine" refers to employees if they are employed on an off day and sent out to do some work like repairing colliery houses. Paragraph (c) relates to men employed at some central depot maintained by a colliery company which owns several pits, for the purpose of carrying out the work, such as machinery repairing, which would in the ordinary course of events be carried out at the pit itself. I believe these to be perfectly comprehensive definitions for the object aimed at. The words have, in fact, been accepted by the Mining Association. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rockley.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, that I had no intention whatever of not accepting his undertaking that he would consider this matter on the Report stage when I spoke on the Committee stage, but what I did feel then, and what I do feel now, is that I was justified in making a protest on the Committee stage against words being left in the Bill which, if unamended on Report, might have led to a great deal of confusion and possibly litigation and friction. The Bill as it passed through Committee left it quite open as to who the men would be "for the purposes of the undertaking." These words were very vague, and I divided the House on the question of whether the words should be inserted which were in the Mines Act of 1911, and which for twenty-three years have been interpreted always to mean the men on the colliery pay bill. The Home Office, the noble Lord, and those responsible for the Bill have now inserted the words which appear on the Order Paper and which define who the people are employed at the colliery "for the purposes of the undertaking." These words, although they appear to my legal advisers to be somewhat cumbersome, yet meet the point I had in view when I divided the House, and I thank the noble Lord for having inserted them. At the
1040
same time I should like to be allowed to congratulate the noble Lord on his success in having carried the Bill through this House with so many necessary Amendments to its present stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order)

LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill which I present to your Lordships' House at this late hour is to meet the situation which has arisen owing to a decision of the High Court, and which was ultimately upheld by the Court of Appeal, declaring to be invalid an older made by the licensing justices for the Steyning Division of Sussex fixing extensions of permitted hours under the Licensing Act, 1921, for part of the year only. Your Lordships will remember that subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Licensing Act of 1921 lays down that the "permitted hours" for the sale of intoxicating liquors on week-days should be eight hours only, ending at 10 p.m. The next subsection, however, did give to the licensing magistrates the right and the power, if they so wished, to extend those "permitted hours" by a further half-hour so that the closing time would be then 10.30 at night. While many of the justices have given such an order for the whole year, a larger number have given orders for part of the year only, and this is the case which was recently declared to be invalid.
The High court and the Court of Appeal, in their interpretation of the Act, laid it down that any direction from the licensing magistrates should and must apply to all week-days throughout the year and not to part of the year only. To meet this point the present Bill, which is really an emergency measure, is introduced, and its sole purpose is to confer on the licensing justices the power which many of them imagined they had possessed since the

1041
main Act of 1921 was passed. This Bill passed through all its stages in another place without a Division, and I submit it to your Lordships' consideration. I would notify to your Lordships that as the Bill is a matter of urgency, if it should meet with the consent of your Lordships' House, I am proposing to put down the Committee stage for Thursday afternoon.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, it is not my intention to offer any opposition to this small alteration of the licensing laws. I rather want to congratulate the noble Earl who has introduced the Bill on finding himself in what I believe to be a unique situation in the history of Parliament. I believe this is the only Licensing Bill in the long story of liquor legislation which has not met with some opposition from some quarter. The truth is, of course, that it is hardly a Licensing Bill at all. It is, as the noble Earl has explained, to put right the confusion in licensing administration which has arisen owing to the varying interpretations which justices have put upon their powers under the Act of 1921. The coming of summer time has caused a number of applications to be made to the justices that they should use their power to extend the closing hour to 10.30 in certain circumstances during summer time, and the justices appear to have given three different answers to such applications. Some, believing they had the power to grant an extension during summer time as a special requirement, granted the application. That happened in a good many cases, and it was only after the decision in the Steyning case that the necessity for this Bill became apparent. Other justices seem to have taken a different view of their powers, and, not being able to grant an extension for summer time only, appear to have granted an extension for the whole twelve months, which it was fully their power to do if they thought the requirements of the neighbourhood were such as to justify it.
Other benches appear to have refused the application, interpreting the law correctly, on the ground that summer time could not be a special requirement, and that became very clear in the Steyning case when Lord Justice Scrutton pointed
1042
out that as summer time was universal throughout the country it could not possibly be a special requirement of any particular place. Therefore, I understand, Clause 2 of this Bill has been put in to enable justices who have decided against applications on the ground that they have not the power, to reconsider the applications if they so desire. The confusion is so great that I am bound to admit, little as I like licensing extensions, that the Government are not unjustified in introducing this small alteration. I gather that the Government wish to get the Bill through as soon as possible, and provided it goes no further than it does at present, and no extension is made in Committee, I should like to say it will meet with no opposition from me or, I think, from any of those who act with me.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I do not intend to speak for more than a moment. I agree with my noble friend who has just spoken that this is an emergency Bill. It is proposed to meet a special difficulty which has arisen, and I think it meets it, as far as I can see, in a satisfactory manner. On those conditions I feel it is a Bill which ought to be passed and I trust it will be passed without any opposition.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I also wish to support the Bill. I think the Government are to be congratulated upon bringing it forward with such expedition. The law has been in an anomalous state for some time, the anomaly being that justices have power to fix the permitted hours for twelve months but have no power, if they so think fit, to fix the permitted hours for a shorter period. This Bill will remove that anomaly without introducing any fresh anomaly. Further the Bill in no way diminishes the discretion of justices. The only point to bear in mind which perhaps is new, is that they must have regard to, and be satisfied as to, the special requirements of the district before they can make an order. As my noble friend has just said, the Bill will no doubt be made use of in respect of summer time in the case of seaside resorts and watering places. Although it does not say so in so many words, the Bill will enable justices in these resorts during the summer months or part of them to extend the permitted hours for a period of not less than eight consecutive weeks if they are satisfied that such an

1043
extension is desirable. Among the matters to be considered by the justices will be the interests of the public.
I also wish to call attention to a further point, and it is this: If the Government had given effect to certain recommendations of the Royal commission on Licensing the litigation that arose in the Steyning case would probably not have arisen. In order to secure uniformity of administration throughout the country, the Royal Commission recommended the establishment of a Central Board or National Licensing Commission, and amongst its duties would be that of advising the magistrates. It was proposed that this body would deal in addition with other matters. In my opinion such a body is an indispensable part of a satisfactory system of licensing administration. The Home Secretary, as the Minister concerned with miscellaneous matters affecting home affairs, has been responsible to Parliament for the conduct of licensing legislation; but he has no administrative or executive functions in connection with the ordinary administration of the licensing law. Some licensing authorities do from time to time consult him on particular questions. The advice given in these ways has served a useful purpose in the direction of securing uniform administration. But even when the Home Secretary has been consulted he has no authority in the matter. Something more is necessary, and some central body such as a National Commission would serve a most useful purpose. The licensing justices have onerous duties to perform, and should be protected from making such mistakes as they made in the Steyning case.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.