BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 30 May 1934 vol 92 cc522-644

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Restriction of betting on tracks.

1.—(1) Betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator shall not take place on any track—

1. (a) on more than one hundred and four days in any calendar year; nor
2. (b) on any Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sunday.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "one hundred and four days in any calendar year" and insert "one hundred and fifty-six days in any calendar year in the case of a track situate in the Metropolitan Police district and two hundred and eight days in any calendar year in the case of a track situate elsewhere than in the Metropolitan Police district provided that not more than one meeting (comprising a maximum of eight races) shall be held on any one day." The noble Duke said: The Bill which we are discussing to-day proposes in Clauses 1 and 9 that greyhound race meetings at which betting may be allowed may take place on only 104 days a year on any track. These days are to be prescribed by the county council or the county borough council a year in advance, and they are to be the same days for every track in the council's area. The question of fixity of days is dealt with in a later Amendment.

The restriction proposed in the Bill is, I think, an unreasonable restriction. Up to now the courses licensed by the National Greyhound Racing Club have operated under a strict code of rules, whereby the managements are debarred from certain practices, and the interests of the public are protected as regards the honesty of racing. On these licensed courses greyhound racing is conducted as a bona fide sport in which more than 20,000 owners of greyhounds are engaged in friendly competition with each other, in exactly the same way as are owners of race horses on the turf. To these owners racecourse managements last year paid out nearly half a million pounds in prize money—actually £416,055. All the licensed racecourses are available to these owners, and through the medium of a great number of open races owners and their greyhounds go from one track to another, meeting in a spirit of sporting and friendly rivalry. The policy of the licensed managements has always been that their proper function has been to present honest and attractive greyhound racing and that betting shall be regarded merely as an ancillary feature. The restrictions proposed in the Bill, however, would put an end to this state of affairs. Managements, being forced to maintain their existence on the minimum possible conditions, would be obliged to resort to every device imaginable to secure the maximum turnover.

The control exercised by the National Greyhound Racing Club and by the Society, established at a cost of £110,000, would disappear. Stringency of financial circumstances would oblige managements to discontinue the payment of prize money, and private ownership of greyhounds would disappear and would be replaced by a system of company-owned dogs, thus robbing greyhound racing of its claim to recognition as a sport and reducing it to the level of a series of animated casinos. There would be intensive methods of inducing the public to attend; the racing would become entirely subordinated to the betting, and the managements would be obliged to encourage the maximum possible volume of betting through the totalisator in order to recoup themselves for the lost business through the turnstiles due to the reduction of days of racing. Thus the prime object of the Bill would be defeated. The best conducted tracks would deteriorate in their standard of management to the standard of lower-class tracks, and instead of the orderly, well-conducted conditions to which we have been accustomed at tracks like Wembley and the White City, there would be a universal level of shabbiness.

If greyhound racing is to be allowed to continue at all it must be given reasonable facilities for being conducted creditably, and if the sport is not to be allowed to exist in a creditable state, then it is better that it should be stopped altogether. If, on the other hand, the Legislature is going to say that greyhound racing in itself is not a thing that ought to be suppressed, but is a thing which has a reasonable claim to existence by virtue of its immense popular appeal, then the Legislature should not withhold from it the minimum conditions that will permit it to be conducted honourably and decently. In other words, it must be allowed conditions which will permit of some reasonable measure of success. It has been argued that, because horse racing is carried on at particular tracks for only a few days in the year, then 104 days should be ample for greyhound courses, but in this respect the two things are not on a par. Horse racecourses, by virtue of the fact that the racing takes place under conditions that attract a large proportion of the more well-to-do classes of people, are able to charge very much higher prices of admission than greyhound courses, and the takings at a horse racing meeting are infinitely larger than the takings at a greyhound meeting. The average takings at a greyhound course for six weeks would not be nearly so great as the takings at Ascot for one week.

The idea seems to exist that greyhound racing enterprises are inexhaustible gold mines, in which immense fortunes are made by everybody, but an examination of the facts shows that this is far from being the case. Although it is true that one or two greyhound companies have paid extraordinarily high dividends, yet the general level of profit is extremely modest. Of the fifty-eight licensed courses with an issued capital of £3,962,000 the gross profit in 1931, without allowing for Income Tax and other charges, was only £458,000. In 1932, it was £603,000; and in 1933 only £218,000. These figures represent profits of 11½ per cent., 15 per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively—or an average of 10¾ per cent. for the three years. Several of the companies have in fact never paid any dividend, while most have paid dividends of less than 10 per cent. In horse racing, although admittedly some courses have not made large profits, some do extremely well. Sandown Park, for example, in its last filed report at Somerset House, showed a profit of £20,000 and paid a dividend of 7½ per cent. Chester paid a dividend of 10 per cent. free of tax. Kempton Park paid a dividend of 15s. per share, free of tax. Hurst Park showed a profit of £5,569, free of tax; and Manchester a profit of £6,469. If it is right to permit to horse racing conditions which will allow of a reasonable measure of profit, it is right also for greyhound racing, and without those provisions the sport cannot be conducted credtiably.

The restrictions now proposed will, in a word, ruin greyhound racing as a sport, though in a large number of cases it will continue in existence as a commercial enterprise of a lower standard than heretofore. In many other cases it will cause the complete dissolution of companies, with very heavy loss to small shareholders. According to the last balance sheets, the capital value of the licensed courses amounts to £4,508,000, and if Parliament is going to introduce conditions which will cause the bankruptcy of a large amount of this property, all of which has been provided by the investing public for enterprises which were perfectly legal and above board, then it is committing an injustice to an enterprise which for years past has been systematically and purposely villified by interests that are opposed to it. If 156 days which I now ask for in the case of tracks in the Metropolitan Police area and 208 days in other areas are considered too many, is there any other number of days to which His Majesty's Government will agree in order to meet us to a certain extent? The greyhound racing authorities told me that the minimum number of days to enable these tracks to continue would be 156, with 5 per cent. on the totalisator.

All the arguments I have stated in dealing with this Amendment are based on the assumption that on the appointed days provided for in the Bill the management would hold only one meeting a day; but in fact there is nothing whatever in the Bill to say that this shall be so, and if the Bill were to go through in its present form a great number of managements would, without any doubt whatever, hold at least two, and perhaps three, meetings on each day of the week; there might even be continuous meetings lasting all day. That would surely be a most undesirable practice, because it would lead to working people attending meetings earlier in the day when they would otherwise be working. The provisions of my Amendment would in point of fact actually reduce the number of meetings that might be held under the Bill from 312 to a maximum of 204. Under the Government's system you would be encouraging a habit of continuous betting on certain days of the week, but under the system outlined in this Amendment you would merely be allowing a limited time of betting on occasions at the selection of the public.

There are many racecourses outside the control of the National Greyhound Racing Club which already run two meetings every day of the week, and there is one racecourse that actually has races three times a day. That seems to me to be very reprehensible. It is plain to me, and I hope to your Lordships, that the reduction of meetings that would take place under this Amendment is wholly sufficient. The effect would be a reduction of at least seventy-five meetings a week. To go a little further into this matter, here are two examples. In London at the present moment there are 135 race meetings a week. Under this Amendment this figure would be reduced by more than one-half. In Liverpool there are four racecourses holding actually thirty-nine race meetings a week. This Amendment would reduce the number to a maximum of sixteen—a cut of twenty-three meetings per week in this area alone. Surely this is a sufficient reduction. Taking the country as a whole, it is estimated that under this Amendment the number of race meetings would be reduced by approximately two-thirds.

To refer once again to the sporting side of greyhound racing, I would like to point out that all the best managements in this country do their utmost to encourage the sporting side of the racing, and they offer large prizes, just as do horse racecourse managements, for special events. The owners of these greyhounds have just as much pride in the ownership of their animals as have owners of race horses, and it is just as much an honour to one of these owners to win the Greyhound Derby as it is for the owner of a racehorse to win the Epsom Derby. Here is one example of the keenness of owners and of the genuineness of their ownership. The Wimbledon management recently promoted a Produce Stakes for greyhounds whelped in 1933, to take place next year. Although the added money does not exceed £200 the management have had an entry of 187 litters from all over the country representing 1,124 greyhounds. If that is not an example of keenness of ownership, one can think of no other.

The owners of these greyhounds represent all classes of the community. There are owners of racing greyhounds in the House of Lords, there are several also in another place, and of course, there are large numbers of men and women in the middle and working classes who own greyhounds. Some of the working-class owners own the very best greyhounds. For example, there is a greyhound called Creamery Border, bred and owned by a milk roundsman. That greyhound has raced eleven times only in this country, but it has won eight races, including one of the premier classics, and its prize money totals something like £2,000. This owner has been offered £800 to £1,000 for the dog, but he is too attached to the animal to sell it. Another owner comes up all the way from Somerset every time his greyhound races at Wembley. There are similarly large numbers who breed and rear their own animals with the greatest affection and care. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 10, leave out ("one hundred and four days in any calendar year") and insert the said new words.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment is page 1, line 10, leave out "one hundred and four days in any calendar year." I will put the Question, that the words "one hundred and four" stand part of the clause, in order to save the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)

After the observations which have fallen from the lips of the noble Duke, I feel that there is very little justification for me in intruding upon your Lordships' attention. There is, however, one aspect which I think cannot be emphasised too greatly, and that is that if you are to have good tracks, adequately maintained with an adequate staff adequately paid, you must secure for them an adequate revenue. Unless you secure that and these other conditions, you cannot secure reputable management. If you do not secure reputable management you are liable to produce, and in fact are bound to produce, fraud and dishonesty, and the profits from such fraudulent operations on one of these tracks might be very large indeed. The mere accumulation of large sums of money dishonestly gained in the hands of a dishonest management is likely to result in an increase of bribery and corruption. In any case, your Lordships know that in other countries legislation in other matters has been passed from altruistic motives which has had the effect, as in the United States, of placing large accumulations of money in the hands of persons who are no respectors of the law, with disastrous consequences in no way foreseen by those who introduced the legislation.

The difficulty of securing evidence against a dishonest track is often very great, but none the less rumours usually manage to get round. In those circumstances a track will become known, and not unnaturally people will frequent an honest track in preference to one that is improperly conducted. The existence of an honest track is therefore a very important check upon disreputable managements, as the latter, having no monopoly, will have difficulty in inducing patrons to frequent their tracks for the sole purpose of being swindled. The view that this Amendment is likely to increase gambling is, I think, erroneous. A man who is so disposed can gamble away all that he has just as easily at two meetings a week as he can at one or at six. The fact that a man is not at a greyhound track does not mean that he is not gambling, but if he is at a greyhound racing track, it does mean that he is in the open air, and if he is gambling there he is gambling under conditions which may be much better for his health than might be the case if he were gambling elsewhere.

When everything is considered it would seem that honesty of operation is the most important matter that this Bill can ensure. This can only be done by keeping these tracks above the level at which reputable management can subsist, and I am convinced that adequate revenue rather than fewer meetings is absolutely essential. Once you reduce these tracks below that subsistence level you destroy a sport and promote a swindle. There is no reason why cleanliness should be destroyed in the interests of fraud and dishonesty. I am bound to confess that I am not fond of gambling, but if I do dislike it, I much prefer it to some of the swindling that might take place if you destroyed the reputable character of these tracks. In these circumstances I am bound to confess that I see no alternative but to support this Amendment.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I think it might be for your Lordships' convenience if I were to speak now on my own Amendment to substitute "two hundred and thirty-four" for "one hundred and four." Whilst I support generally the increase of days proposed by the noble Duke, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will accept my Amendment and not his. I only propose going a little further: I propose to insert 234 days, and I then propose to say: of which not more than three days shall be in any week between the first of October in any year and the thirty-first of March of the year following. That would give actually an average of four and a half days per week. What it would actually mean is six days per week in the summer and three days per week in the winter. I think it is felt that in the summer, especially at holiday resorts to which large masses of people, particularly from the industrial classes, go during their holidays, recreational sport is necessary every night. Also in the summer the weather is very much finer, whereas in the winter the need is not nearly so great, and three days a week would, I think, in point of fact be ample.

I was not impressed by what the noble Duke said about the distinction between London and the rest of the country. I cannot see at all why there should be a discrimination between the number of days which he proposes for London and the number proposed for the rest of the country. He quoted Liverpool and London, but I would like to point out to your Lordships that Liverpool is vastly smaller than London, and it does not seem to me to be just that the London tracks should be debarred from having racing on the same number of days as the other parts of the country. Further, I would like to point out to your Lordships that there is no sport at all being run in this country which is restricted to less than four days a week, and I really do not see how, in justice to the population of this country, we can limit greyhound racing to less than four days a week. To do so, seems to me perfectly absurd. I hope your Lordships will accept my two Amendments in preference to the proposals of the noble Duke.

LORD ASKWITH

The speech of the noble Earl shows the moderation of the noble Duke's Amendment to this clause. This clause, and one or two other clauses of the Bill, lead one to wonder what is the intention of the Bill as a whole. Is it to smash greyhound racing, to destroy it altogether, so that there may be no betting at all upon greyhounds, or so to hamper it that it will die a slow death? It would be the death of a thousand cuts, because every means would be taken by those courses which might still continue to exist to keep alive as long as they could, for the sake of saving something for their unfortunate shareholders. As honorary President of the National Greyhound Society I have had to go into these questions very carefully, and in answer to the noble Earl's remark about London, I may say that it was with some difficulty that the London courses, in order to meet the view expressed in the Royal Commission's Report that there should not be excessive facilities for gambling, were induced to agree to the reduction to three days a week. On some of the courses which have an opportunity of showing other sports from time to time, such as Wembley and the White City, it is possible to exist on that practice, but in the provinces three days a week would not enable a large number of licensed courses to exist, unless they resorted to the practice I have mentioned. The effect on such very restricted courses as these, and the restriction of the days of racing to the same days for all courses, as settled by the local authority, would be that the managements might have to resort to any other means they could to increase their revenue, and it would be an inducement to increase the gambling facilities. Another result would be the reduction of their staffs and the turning off of a large number of men, who are now reputably employed and receiving good wages, on to the unemployed list. It would bring about a state of affairs such as was hinted at in rather lurid terms by Lord Darcy (de Knayth).

What would be the effect on the public? The public would be driven out on to the streets for street betting. They would be deprived of an opportunity of going to these courses, where they cannot drink and where they can spend their evenings in the open air. They are not able to spend the whole day on a racecourse, as is the case with horse racing, but they enjoy an amusement, whether they are betting or not—and many do not bet at all—to which they have become accustomed. The curtailment of such an opportunity would be resented—a resentment not based on the idea of differentiation between a rich man's sport and a poor man's sport, but a resentment felt at the selection of one sport for restrictions which no other sport has to endure. The public would consider it an unfair attempt to exercise an unreasonable control over a particular sport. It must also be remembered that greyhound racing is a very local affair. It is a thing which a man can go to after his day's work, if there is a course in his locality, without having to go long distances and without having to spend large sums upon travelling expenses, and from which he can get home in time to get a good night's sleep and be ready for his work in the morning. The idea that people go from one town to another to follow greyhound racing is entirely mistaken. It is a matter which is much kept to one locality, and with regard to betting in that locality it is much less than would probably take place upon horse racing and football if you curtailed greyhound racing. The Government have apparently legalised football pools, a source of gambling which is infinitely greater than anything which can be laid at the doors of greyhound racing.

Further, there is this to be said, that greyhounds have not got their races published a long time beforehand, with the dogs well known upon which betting can take place. In the case of horses betting can take place in some cases many months before the actual race is run. Further, bets can be laid on horses from John o'Groats to Land's End. But greyhounds have not got that chance, for no one bets in Liverpool, say, upon dog racing in London. It is a comparatively local sport; there is but small betting, and it is a popular sport, as the numbers of those who have attended the courses during the last few years perfectly well show. It is a sport which, even with the restrictions which the noble Duke suggests, will still continue to exist without other courses springing up like mushrooms, such as might be the effect if there were no control. I support the Amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland very strongly. I support it from knowledge and not from mere guess-work of numbers, and this, that and the other fact. I have gone carefully into the matter, and I think the Amendment of the noble Duke is a very fair compromise which the Government might most reasonably entertain.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I wish to support the Amendment moved by the noble Duke simply because, as I understand it, the House, or rather the Government, have made up their minds that dog racing is to continue but is to be properly controlled. For that reason I am against the Amendment moved by the noble Earl opposite, because I think he was mixing the National Society with what I may call the casinos. His Amendment would mean gambling every night in unlicensed places, where there was no real control. On the other hand you must remember that the National Greyhound Society have their rules.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

May I point out that I was only dealing with licensed tracks? I believe there are fifty-eight tracks controlled by the National Society, and about 130 other tracks.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

It will certainly be my endeavour before the end of the proceedings on this Bill to see that these other tracks, which I may call outside tracks, are brought under some measure of control. For that reason I am against a very large number of meetings, as proposed by the noble Earl, because it is inconceivable that owners of dogs would run their dogs every night in that way. On these uncontrolled tracks the dogs belong to whoever owns the place, and it is a case of devil take the hindmost, and nobody much minds; but it is a very different thing where every dog is known and licensed. I have gone into the matter rather carefully, and the Association tell me that 104 days is too small a number and that the number should be 156 days in London. That is sufficient for London, which has got more than one track, and which has a very large population. If the Association are prepared to take that number, why make it more? It seems unreasonable. On the other hand, the Association say that where the population is sparse 156 days would not be sufficient, and it is for that reason that they ask for a larger number of days outside the metropolitan area. If they say that those numbers are sufficient for them, I should be inclined to ask your Lordships to accept their figures, and not to agree to an unlimited number.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY)

The Amendment which the noble Duke has moved is probably the most important Amendment to the Bill, but I hardly think that your Lordships will expect me, after the speech which I delivered on the Second Reading, to go fully into all those points which have been raised. They will come up on more than one later Amendment. The noble Duke began by saying that betting was a minor ancillary to greyhound racing. I should like to inform him—because he does not seem to recognise this—that there is no limit to the number of days racing in a week that it is possible to have; and Sundays are not excluded either. If betting is only a small ancillary to greyhound racing it seems to me that that argument of the noble Duke is not very helpful to his case for this Amendment. The noble Duke said that unless so many days were allowed under the Bill—and I think the minimum he has stated is 156 —no racecourse could continue; I think the words he used were that they would develop into shabby undertakings. I am given to understand that there are tracks in this country which are quite satisfied with 104 days, and which do not want more, but it is a number of other tracks which feel that they will be unable to carry on because they will not be able to receive licences for betting on more than 104 days.

The noble Duke and those who have spoken on this Amendment appear to me to have misunderstood the whole proposition which the Government desire to put forward. This measure comes under the heading of social reform, and no one will contend that the introduction of measures of social reform is ever universally popular; but there is a vast number of people who think that any Government would be wanting in its duty if it did not bring forward measures of this description. On the Second Reading I said the Government were not arbiters of morals, but that they were determined to mitigate the effects which betting has on the community as a whole. If I could show your Lordships the vast correspondence which I have received in the short time which has elapsed since the Second Reading, from numbers of people who are not all cranks and kill-joys or people who wish to spoil the sport of the people, but who are men and women closely associated with the social life of this country, you would see that there is not one of them who has much to say in favour of dog racing, and they can show, as the Royal Commission did, that wherever dog racing does exist, instead of the well-being of the community being enhanced, a deterioration sets in, upon which they look with varying degrees of dismay as to what the future will bring forth.

Clause 1 of the Bill, to which the noble Duke has moved an Amendment, proposes that betting by way of bookmaking or by means of the totalisator shall not take place on any track on which sporting events are held on more than 104 days in any calendar year; while Clause 9 provides that the 104 days on which betting facilities may be provided shall be appointed by the licensing authority, that is, county councils and county borough councils, and that the appointed days shall be the same for all tracks in any licensing area. The noble Duke proposes by this Amendment to allow betting facilities—and that is the important point—to be provided on any track in the Metropolitan Police district on 156 days a year (an average of three a week) and on 208 days on any track outside the Metropolitan Police district (an average of four days a week). From the point of view of social effects the important factor is not so much the amount of betting facilities afforded on each track as the amount afforded by all the tracks in each locality. The Amendment accordingly cannot be adequately considered in isolation from other Amendments which the noble Duke has put on the Order paper.

He seems to propose two alternatives. In the first place by an Amendment to leave out Clause 9, the 156 days on London tracks and the 208 days on provincial tracks could be employed for betting at the discretion of the individual tracks. If each track were allowed to choose its own betting days, those days could be so chosen that in effect there would be practically no limitation of betting days in any area in which there were two or more tracks. This result would stultify the whole scheme of limitation, and incidentally would be inconsistent with the declared policy of the greyhound racing interests themselves that there should be some limitation on the number of betting days. Secondly, by an alternative Amendment to Clause 9, at page 9, line 30, the noble Duke proposes that the appointed days shall be fixed by the licensing authority, by which he means the statutory board which he proposes should be set up. It is not clear from his scheme whether this board would specify the appointed days for each individual track, or appoint the same 156 days for all tracks within the Metropolitan Police district and the same 208 days for all tracks outside that area. If he means that the maximum number of days should be fixed by the board in respect of each track separately, there again the result would be that there would not necessarily be any limitation of betting days in any area in which there were two or more tracks. If he means that the country should be divided into two areas—the Metropolitan Police district and the rest of the country—and that the appointed days should be the same within these two areas, then the proposal is open to the objection that the number of days is excessive.

There are twenty odd dog tracks in the Metropolitan Police district and about 200 outside that area. The noble Duke's proposal is, therefore, that on the great majority of tracks there should be betting on 208 days per annum or an average of four days a week. The consequences of allowing gambling on tracks every night of the year have proved so mischievous that the Government could not accept a proposal which would only result in decreasing the number of days from six or seven days to four days a week throughout the year. It is doubtful if those who are being harmed by repeated attendances at greyhound tracks ever attend each night of the week. The provision of betting facilities on four evenings a week all the year round would be easily sufficient to continue and perpetuate all the evil social effects which have made it necessary for the Government to introduce the present Bill. I would remind the House in this connection that the Royal Commission referred particularly to the general deterioration of character among young persons in poorer neighbourhoods due to the excite- ment resulting from day-to-day betting on greyhound races which drove out from their minds every other interest. As a remedy for that social mischief, a reduction from six days a week to an average of four days a week is quite useless. For those who attend greyhound racing from the motives which lead people to attend other sports, it seems to me that an allowance of 104 days a year is more than ample.

Really, if I may venture to say so, there is no analogy between horse racing and greyhound racing in the number of days. You will find in various districts that horse racing takes place on a certain number of days in the year, but nothing in comparison with 104 days, and although a district may be excited and interested during a certain number of days, that period does not correspond in any degree with the 104 days proposed under the Bill, or with the 156 in London or the 208 in other portions of the country, proposed by the noble Duke. If the noble Duke would consider the objects which lie at the back of this Bill, he will see that the object we have in view is to stem and stay and remove if we can possible social deterioration throughout the country. He will see that his proposition, whatever merits it may have—and I am bound to say I see very little merit in it—has nothing to do with assisting the Government in carrying out a restriction which is accepted and desired by the great majority of the people of this country. But, as I have indicated, the paramount consideration is that in the public interest a considerable reduction in the amount of betting facilities which may be provided on tracks is absolutely necessary. In the considered view of the Government, the limitation proposed by this Amendment is in no sense an effective limitation and does little to remedy the mischiefs arising out of the organised provision of opportunities for continuous gambling.

It may be said in some quarters that it will not be practicable from a commercial point of view to operate dog tracks on 104 days a year. As I explained on Second Reading, the Government do not consider it to be their duty so to frame their proposals as to ensure that every dog track in the country can be operated to the financial profit of its owners. The Government are not animated, however, by any desire to sup press dog racing; and they have reason to believe that those tracks which are reasonably conducted can operate quite well on 104 days. I am endeavouring to reply to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, who is contending, I think, that the Government are attempting by legislation to arrive by a round-about way at the suppression of dog racing in this country. I think I have been able to make it clear to your Lordships that that is not so; and it is a fact that there are tracks—and very good tracks—in this country which are quite satisfied with 104 days.

LORD ASKWITH

I have not heard of them.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I can give the noble Lord proof. The track I am speaking of is Wembley, which I believe is the most important track in the country.

LORD ASKWITH

Wembley has a great many other sports besides dog racing.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The noble Lord said he did not know of any track in the country which was satisfied with 104 days, and I quote the track at Wembley as one that is satisfied. Nor are the Government impressed with the argument that the limitation of days will ruin greyhound racing as a sport. At present the tracks affiliated to the National Greyhound Racing Society are subject to a self-imposed limitation of race meetings per week and no Sunday meetings, whereas the other tracks race as often as they wish. Under the Bill it is obvious that the unregulated tracks will lose this advantage. All tracks will have the same maximum number of racing days—namely, 104 per annum, and no track will be able to race on Sundays as regards betting facilities. I should like to emphasise that dog racing can take place on all days of the week and on Sundays, but betting facilities will not be allowed except on the 104 days prescribed in the Bill. This seems to represent an advantage to the Society's tracks compared with the present position. I think your Lordships will agree with me that experience has shown that a higher standard of greyhound racing gives bigger attendances. If the Society, with the higher standards it claims to represent, has prospered when greyhound racing was quite unregulated, there is no reason why it should not prosper equally under the system of regulation. Experience, I believe, has shown that it pays to offer a high standard of racing to the public because attendances are thereby increased, and that is sound commercial policy whether the number of days per annum is 365 or 104.

In regard to the proviso at the end of the Amendment, which appeared on the Order Paper for the first time to-day—["provided that not more than one meeting (comprising a maximum of eight races) shall be held on any one day"] —the first observation I have to make is that the suggestion that there should be not more than one meeting a day comprising a maximum of eight races is specifically related to greyhound racing. The Bill, however, is not confined to greyhound racing, but deals with all forms of sporting events. At athletic meetings there are often more than eight competitive events at one meeting. The second observation I have to make is that if it were desirable to restrict the amount of betting which might take place on any day, the only practicable method would be to relate the restrictions to the hours during which betting should be allowed to take place. It would be practicable, for example, to propose that on any of the 104 appointed days betting facilities should not be provided on any track on more than, say, four hours. This proposal may seem attractive at first sight, but it is open to the criticism that it is illogical that an activity which is legal, say, at eight in the evening should became illegal at nine in the evening. It is for these reasons that the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment which has been made by the noble Duke.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I was very glad to hear the noble Marquess's speech, and I hope very much that the Government will stand firm on their proposal. The noble Marquess who has just spoken has reminded your Lordships that on the whole the Government Bill is based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. A year or two ago there were various social problems arising out of the increase in gambling, which were causing considerable anxiety, and, as very often happens in these cases, the Government of the day set up a Royal Commission to take evidence and look into the whole thing. When we deal with a question like this we cannot lightly put aside the conclusions arrived at after more than a year's investigation by eminently sensible people—not at all cranks—appointed by the Government to look into the whole of this qestion. You have only to look through the personnel of the Royal Commission to find that it was composed of gentlemen who are far from being cranks —Sir Stanley Jackson, Sir Sydney Skinner, head of a big firm, and Mr. W.L. Hichens, head of Cammell, Laird and Co., and so on, eminently sensible people interested in the welfare of the community. They sat for more than a year taking evidence, and as a result they made, at the end, certain recommendations, and, on the whole though not entirely, the Government have based their Bill on the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

The Amendment which has been moved to Clause 1 is intended to weaken the Bill and go back on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. When a jury have heard a case, have listened to evidence, and heard all the witnesses, we, who have not had the advantage of hearing the witnesses, do not assume that the jury are entirely wrong and at once proceed to say that the person who has been on trial, instead of being hung should be let out. I think we should be very reluctant to throw over the recommendations which, first of all, were put forward by the Royal Commission, and secondly, were further examined by the Government. The noble Marquess referred to the fact that in connection with greyhound racing the Commission stated quite emphatically that the social consequences were very serious. They said that after hearing representatives of chief constables, of the Y.M.C.A., probation officers and others. These witnesses almost unanimously referred to the deterioration of character particularly among the young in localities where greyhound racing was started, and, in particular, the Royal Commission picked out greyhound racing as being quite distinct. They looked into the question of horse racing and football and other sports, but they picked out greyhound racing as being by itself the creator of new problems. It was a new sport which had been recently started, and as a result of their inquiry the Commission made certain clear and, I think, perfectly logical recommendations for limiting the number of days.

Your Lordships have been well aware of the agitation which has been going on outside in connection with this problem. As in connection with so many other problems, you have, on the one side—I am not referring to any noble Lord who has spoken—the financial interests, and on the other side, you have those who are interested in social welfare. I would like to read two very brief passages, one in the Interim Report and one in the Final Report of the Royal Commission. In the Interim Report the Royal Commission say: The gambling instinct of the population at large is being increasingly exploited by persons for their own financial gain. And in their Final Report they say: Our concern is that we see before us the mass exploitation for private financial gain of the instinct or propensity to gamble. This is most marked in regard to a considerable part of the community in the poorer urban districts whose circumstances make such exploitation particularly easy and particularly on fortunate. As I have said, you have only to read through the Reports to see that the Commission do in fact consider that the growth of gambling in connection with greyhound racing is what they are most concerned with. I hope, therefore, that the Government will stand firmly by the Bill as now drafted in this particular clause.

LORD STRABOLGI

The noble Marquess said that this was probably the most important Amendment to the Bill before your Lordships' House, and before we go to a Division I would like, with your Lordships' leave, to make a comment on the noble Marquess's speech and, indeed, to ask the Government if they will give us some further enlightenment. I listened with the greatest attention to what the noble Marquess said, and also to what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has just let fall, and I have studied very carefully the speeches made on the Second Reading. What is the object behind this Bill? We have just heard from the noble Viscount that we should support the Royal Commission because it was a very eminent Royal Commission, was very industrious, and was composed of men of affairs and so on. But we are doing nothing of the kind. My reading of the Royal Commission's Report is that they were very much opposed to the totalisator on greyhound racing tracks.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

I said on this particular proposal.

LORD STRABOLGI

I do not want to do the noble Viscount an injustice, and I agree he wants to keep us to 104 days a year. The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill tells us of the evil social effects of greyhound racing, of the deterioration of character amongst the young, and the noble Viscount quoted the same words. Yet, apparently, we are to have this on 104 days a year. I would point out to your Lordships that if there is a young person who is led away by the excitement of gambling on greyhounds, who wastes his money and is led into dishonest practices and things of that kind, he can still indulge in it on 104 days in the year. With great respect for the noble Marquess I am afraid the Government's real object is this: they want to crush out as many of the greyhound racing tracks as they can. They would like to abolish the sport of greyhound racing altogether; they think it has a deteriorating effect on the characters of the young, that it has evil social effects and so on; but they have not the courage to do so. The noble Marquess, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, said that he knew of one track which could make a living apparently on 104 days in the year. Lord Askwith then challenged the noble Marquess and the noble Marquess said the track was Wembley. That was the one case the noble Marquess brought forward. The noble Lord, Lord Askwith, then pointed out that Wembley had many other sources of revenue. This is the situation. We are going, apparently, to ruin all the smaller tracks up and down the country, but we are going to allow a few very well managed, well financed, well capitalised concerns to continue.

If that is not compromising with evil, if it is an evil, I do not know what is. We are to decide as to whether this evil thing should be allowed on two days a week or on three days a week in the Metropolis, and four days in the provinces. My noble friend beside me (the Earl of Kinnoull) would still further extend it. What are we to do? The guidance we get from the Government Bench is, apparently, that this is a terrible social evil, that this is a social reform Bill, and yet the evil, if such it is, is to be allowed to continue throughout the year on 104 days. I suggest to your Lordships that the whole of this Bill as it affects greyhound racing is most badly drawn. Although I shall, of course, support the Government if this Amendment goes to a Division, I most earnestly suggest to the noble Marquess that the whole of this part of the Bill ought to be withdrawn from your Lordships' consideration and redrafted.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

There is one aspect of this question which has not been mentioned. It has been said that a well-managed track could probably be run profitably on 104 days a year, and that the Bill as now drafted will be advantageous to the well-managed track and disadvantageous to the badly-managed track. I think that actually the position will be exactly the reverse, because, as I understand the organisation of greyhound racing to-day, the well-managed track spends a considerable sum of money and employs a considerable number of people in ensuring that the sport is run properly and is clean sport. If the managements of those tracks are tied down to the absolute minimum so far as profits are concerned, they will not be able to afford the money to ensure the cleanliness of the sport on their tracks. That will leave the smaller tracks which do not take that trouble to carry on while the big tracks, because they cannot provide the clean sport they desire, will go out of action. It seems to me, therefore, that the problem before your Lordships is whether you are going to allow sport on two days a week which is potentially not profitable or sport on three or four days which will be properly run.

THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON

May I emphasise one point, that did not seem to me to need underlining although it was underlined by the noble Marquess? It is that this clause takes no part for or against greyhound racing as such. As the noble Marquess said, in most cases dog racing can go on every day of the week, including Sunday, if the promoters so desire. The point at issue is simply whether dog racing shall be associated with betting facilities publicly provided on more than two days in any week or more than 104 days in any year. It does not seem to need much further argument to dispose of the suggestion that has been made more than once by noble Lords that this is an indirect way of crushing out a harmless sport.

If, on the other hand, it is not true, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, suggested, that betting is merely an ancillary to dog racing, and the real truth is that dog racing will not flourish unless it is associated with betting, then, though some of us may have wished with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that the full recommendations of the Royal Commission should be embodied in the measure, we accept gratefully the compromise necessary in politics and feel that here is something which does reasonable justice to dog racing as such and, at the same time, makes a firm stand against an admittedly grave and growing social evil. Dare one suggest that the real issue from the point of view of many watching from outside is whether this House is going to be swayed by the moral interests of the whole community or the financial interests of a part?

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, but I do want to press the point that the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, was right in saying that this Amendment is the beginning of an attempt to undermine the force of the Bill. I feel perfectly certain that if we give way on this particular point it will be the beginning of the undermining of what I believe to be a most useful Bill. You have on the one side, as I have said before, the Christian Social Council, the Church of Scotland, the Church Army, the Salvation Army, the Charity Organisation Society, the football clubs, probation officers, and Stipendary Magistrates and others, and on the other side simply those who are financially concerned with the profits of greyhound racing. I feel myself that if you have 104 days dog racing, which is more than the number of days of horse racing, it is monstrous to say that you are spoiling the sport of the poor. I hope your Lordships by your votes on this Amendment will show that you think the Government have held the balance fairly between those who would like to see greyhound racing abolished and those who want fair consideration given to the financial interests of others.

On Question, Whether the words "one hundred and four" should stand part of the clause?

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I do not propose to move that Amendment.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Restriction of bookmaking on tracks.

(2) Bookmaking shall not be carried on on any licensed track on any day not being one of the days appointed in accordance with this Part of this Act as the days on which betting facilities may be provided

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 75; Not-contents, 34.

CONTENTS.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Halifax, V.	Hastings, L.
	Mersey, V.	Kilmaine, L.
Reading, M.		Kylsant, L.
Zetland, M.	London, L. Bp.	Lloyd, L.
	Ripon, L. Bp.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Airlie, E.		Merrivale, L.
Bradford, E.	Alvingham, L.	Palmer, L.
Buxton, E.	Amulree, L.	Plowarth, L.
Cavan, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
De La Warr, E.	Arnold, L.	Raglan, L.
Dudley, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Feversham, E.	Biddulph, L.	Rennell, L.
Fortescue, E.	Boston, L.	Rhayader, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Clinton, L.	Rochester, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Clwyd, L.	Salterford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Mar and Kellie, E.	Cobham, L.	Sanderson, L.
Midleton, E.	Cornwallis, L.	Snell, L.
Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)	Denman, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Munster, E.	Ernle, L.	Stanmore, L.
Plymouth, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Stonehaven, L.
Stanhope, E.	Fairhaven, L.	Starbolgi, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
	Greville, L.
Astor, V.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Templemore, L.
Esher, V.	Hampton, L.	Tenterden, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Wargrave, L.
Hailsham, V.	Harlech, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

NOT-CONTENTS.
Sutherland, D. [Teller.]	Rosslyn, E.	Darcy (de Knayth), L.
	Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)	Ellenborough, L.
Exeter, M.		Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
	Bertie of Thame, V.	Hindlip, L.
Ancaster, E	Chelmsford, V.	Hutchison of Montrose, L.
Bathurst, E.	Hereford, V.	Jessel, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)		Lawrence, L.
	Askwith, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Effingham, E.	Bayford, L.	Redesdale, L.
Lindsay, E.	Carew, L.	Selsdon, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Carnock, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Peel, E.	Carrington, L.	Strachie, L.
Radnor, E. [Teller.]	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Stratheden, L.

on licensed tracks in the licensing area in which the track is situate

EARL PEEL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "appointed in accordance with this Part of this Act as the days." The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I desire to move cannot be described, as the noble Marquess described the last Amendment, 'as the most important Amendment on the Order Paper, but I think it follows to some extent logically from the decision which has just been taken by your Lordships as to the number of days upon which these facilities are to be permitted on dog racing tracks. May I describe very briefly the effect of the Amendment, because I think it has consequential results which are perhaps not perfectly clear? The main consequence of the Amendment really is to leave out Clause 9, "Fixing of days on which betting facilities may be provided." It will be seen that according to Clause 9 those days Are to be fixed a year beforehand by the licensing authority, that they are to be exactly the same days for each track in an area, and that they apparently cannot be varied during the year in which they run.

The suggestion which I make by this Amendment is that having fixed the number of days upon which these facilities may be allowed, it should be left to the owners of the tracks to say on what days they should exercise that leave; that is to say, they should themselves fix two days a week, or three days a week for a shorter time—in fact, distribute the 104 days as they desire. I am bearing in mind, of course, the general proposition laid down by the noble Marquess, that the object of the Bill is to limit betting on these tracks, and I bear in mind also the observations which he has made about possible deterioration and so on. All I am suggesting is that if you have limited the number of days, really it is fair to leave the managements themselves to select those days which they think are most convenient to the public. The noble Marquess said, and said quite rightly, if I may say so, that the Government certainly cannot guarantee that there shall be a profit for any of these licensed tracks, but I think it is up to the Government, as they wish to regulate and not to destroy, to leave such arrangements to be made, subject to their restrictions, as will give a reasonable opportunity for these tracks to be successful.

The matter has been discussed by other speakers, and I think I need not dwell upon the obvious necessity of having these tracks conducted in a reasonable and sensible manner. But may I be allowed also to say this? Restrictions of this kind, brought in from the very best motives, and no doubt with the desire of preventing any deterioration in morals from excessive betting, must be to some extent irritating to the public. I suggest that they should be made as little irritating as possible, and that if you have decided on the number of days upon which betting should be allowed, you should give a certain freedom within that restriction, as it were, to select on what days it should be carried on. I do feel that it is of the greatest importance, when you are introducing this kind of sumptuary legislation, that you should make it as tolerable as you can for the people for whom it is intended. It is never very popular that there should be restrictions of this kind, but nowadays, when everybody has got a vote, man and woman, the feeling, I think, is a little different from what it may have been thirty or forty years ago. They feel that they are judges, very largely, of their own behaviour and morals, and are apt to be a little resentful if they are too much confined and controlled in the liberty which is allowed to them under the Bill. It is because I want this Bill to be as acceptable as possible—it is a difficult Bill, I know—that I urge upon my noble friend this minor Amendment.

Of course there is one plain objection, with which I would like to deal. It will be said: "Oh, it is so easy to evade the provisions of the Bill if you allow this liberty, because you may have in a particular town three tracks, and the management of one may decide to open on Monday and Tuesday, the second on Wednesday and Thursday, and the third on Friday and Saturday, and so the object of the Bill will be evaded, because everybody will be able to go on betting tracks every day of the week." If I thought that would be possible I would not propose this Amendment, but I hope to show that I do not think it is either possible or practicable. First of all, and I think Lord Askwith put this point very clearly, you are dealing with a public who are not a sort of car-folk. In the main the people who attend these meetings are the poorer people, who depend mostly for locomotion upon their own feet or the cheaper forms of transport—the penny 'bus, if I may use the expression. It is obvious, therefore, that the range of locomotion of these people is very limited. They certainly cannot go from town to town and, indeed, they find great difficulty in going from one part of a large town to another part.

Let us take certain examples. There are very few towns, I understand, in which there is more than one track, and it is obvious that financial reasons would prevent any undue multiplication of tracks for the purpose of evading the, Bill, if my Amendment is carried. First take the smaller towns. It is obvious that there nobody would put down two tracks, because they would not pay. Then take a large county. It is really absurd in a County like Kent that at one end, in seasonable resorts, you should have the same days fixed as are observed in the rest of the County. It is too rigid an application of a rule; but if it is suggested by the noble Marquess that there might be too much facility granted in that way, surely it is in the power of the licensing authority to refuse or not to refuse, as they like, a licence for a track which they think is situate in their own area too near to another one. That danger, I think, can easily be put a stop to, and therefore I suggest that this liberty of fixing the days should be left to the track authorities themselves. I do not think that that danger—I think it is the only danger, and the only objection that can be raised to my proposal—is really substantial. I think my proposal is much more satisfactory, is in the interest of the skilled conduct of these tracks, and will avoid undue irritation of the public. I hope that the noble Marquess will agree that this is a very minor Amendment, and one that does not infringe upon the larger considerations of policy which he described to us in replying on the last Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("days") to the first ("on")in line 31.—(Earl Peel.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Amendment which the noble Earl has moved, although he deprecated the suggestion, is really a very important one indeed, and he has, if I may say so, put it forward with all the skill and eloquence of which we know he is a master. As a matter of fact the Amendment really cuts right across the principle which underlies the Bill, because it gives the opportunity to each track to adjudicate for itself on which days it will have racing.

EARL PEEL

May I correct the noble Marquess? It is not the days on which it may have racing, but betting.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I stand corrected by the noble Earl—the days on which betting facilities are allowed. It would mean that the tracks in the neighbourhood would come to some arrangement with each other. So there would be continuous racing, and opportunities which they would lose by certain of the public going to one track could be obviated by not racing on that day. The noble Earl also mentioned the difficulties of locomotion, but I think that if one travels about the country one sees the number of omnibuses which are crowded by vast numbers of the population, showing that if they are desirous of racing—and nobody denies that betting does hold out an attraction to enormous numbers in this country—there is no difficulty in finding means of transport. By this Amendment you would in the end find betting facilities provided on six days in the week, and for this reason the Government cannot see their way to accept the Amendment put forward by the noble Earl.

I thought that when the noble Earl put down his Amendment which in itself means nothing but only comes to full fruition when a subsequent Amendment is incorporated in the Bill, he had some reason which my advisers had not acted on. The noble Earl furnished the exact answer which I was proposing to give him, which is that the principle which underlies the Bill—namely, that of restricting the facilities for betting—would be overcome by the Amendment that is down on the Paper, and for this reason, in the interests of the Bill which the Government have put forward, and of the maintenance of the main principle which the Bill involves, it is impossible to accept the Amendment.

LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE

In regard to this Amendment, I should like to point out this, that it relates very closely to Clause 9, for the omission of which certain noble Lords have put down an Amendment. I am one who feels that this sport of dog racing is a sport which has come to stay, and although it is not a sport which I support in any way, I think that those who do support it are entitled to enjoy a certain amount of liberty and freedom. I am glad to think that those who used to be associated with myself in another place have gradually become educated to this point of view, that however pernicious we may feel betting to be, we have to recognise that human nature is what it is. It is far better to have this done legitimately and openly and under the law, than to have it done, as it has been in the past, in an underhand manner.

I think there is a good deal to be said for allowing the courses to select the days inside areas on which they shall have racing. After all, it is exactly what is being done by the Jockey Club for horse racing. There is one rule which they follow: they try to prevent racing on the same day at two places in any given area. It seems to me that you are going against all reasonable laws of sport in taking an area and saying they shall have racing on particular days only. We do not want to go back to D.O.R.A., under which our various sports and arrangements were interfered with by regulations of all kinds. I would rather the people were free to enjoy themselves as they wish, so long as they do so reasonably and properly. As I have said, I do not support this Amendment because I am associated in any manner with dog racing, which I am not, but merely from a desire not to impose an unfair restriction on the liberty of the subject.

LORD JESSEL

I think it is certainly most difficult for a local authority to judge of the question as to what should be the right days for dog racing on a particular track. It seems to me quite wrong to place that onus on the local authority. It would be very much better to leave the matter to the greyhound owners themselves.

LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)

When your Lordships are discussing the question of people being able to get from one race meeting to another as though the tracks were all adjoining, it seems to me that it is desirable to take concrete cases. I believe, for instance, that in Kent there are racecourses at Ramsgate and Rochester, as well as elsewhere. Now the course at Ramsgate is essentially one that depends upon a seasonal custom. It is closed for eight months in the year. At the present moment it holds three meetings a week, but in any case it is to be appreciated that that course is in different circumstances from the purely urban course of Rochester, where there is an all-the-year-round custom. If the Kent County Council is required to lay down 104 days in a year on which all tracks in its area must race, what is its policy to be as between those two courses? If it lays down two days a week throughout the year, then it is being unfair to the course at Ramsgate. Yet no one could contend that people would go in any numbers several times a week from Rochester to Ramsgate, and so indulge in continuous betting.

You have now limited the number of days for betting and you are now compelled to arrange it in such a way that the days are bound to be unsuitable to certain tracks, which means that their owners cannot operate honestly. That seems to me to be a direct encouragement of those very undesirable social tendencies that have been so much deplored this evening. It is really unfortunate that that should be so because nobody desires to see disreputable tracks operated. I understood that that was the view expressed by your Lordships' House when we were voting on the other Amendment, which has just been rejected on the sole ground that we considered that these tracks should be operated decently. If you limit the number of days to 104 in a year you must make the conditions such that those 104 days may be suitable days. I hope your Lordships will not take away with your left hand what you have just given with your right.

EARL PEEL

Perhaps with the permission of the Committee I might say one word in reply to the noble Marquess, because, with great respect for what he said, he really did not meet my argument at all. He did not even reply to it. I took the different cases and showed that it was not possible, with the habits of the people and the facilities that exist, for them to go about from one place to another, and I showed that if there was any difficulty of that kind it could easily be got over by the licensing authority, who could define where these licences should be granted and where the tracks should be. But the noble Marquess drew a picture which I must comment on, because it was so utterly unlike the facts and so utterly different from the habits of people who frequent race meetings in this country that I was rather surprised to hear it from him.

I do not know whether he was speaking under the iron thrall of the Home Office or expressing his own natural common sense views, but he drew a picture of the people who attend these dog race meetings going all over the country in motor omnibuses and attending one meeting after another, and he suggested that if the meetings were to be held on different days these people would apparently spend their whole lives passing from one racecourse to another. But these are people who earn their daily bread by their labour. How is it possible for these people to travel all over the country in these omnibuses when the next morning they have to be at their work at six or seven o'clock? No, the picture which the noble Marquess drew does not correspond with the facts of the case, and if there are such people as he suggests they are a negligible quantity. If that small minority are so debased as to want to bet on dog races every day of the week we must. leave them to their own devices: I do not think this House will be able to cure them. The whole case of the Government on this point does not in my judgment carry very much weight, because you can easily avoid the difficulty. The Amendment does not run athwart the general principles of the Bill. It only leaves a reasonable latitude to the people who are conducting these racecourses, and it cannot have any of those terrible results which the noble Marquess described.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

I should like to point out that in the case of London it is perfectly easy for a man to go and bet at Wembley one day, the White City the next, and Hackney Marshes the next.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

May I ask the right reverend Prelate why he should not?

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

The noble Duke asks why he should not. The whole point of the Bill is that he should not. I am not saying that because a man bets he is filled with double-dyed iniquity. Many of your Lordships bet; I know that very well. But what we want to prevent is a man spending his money in this way every day of the week. If your Lordships knew the mischief which is being done you would see what the Government are trying to prevent. If a man lives at Chiswick he can get on an omnibus and go to the White City one day, to Wembley the next day, and to Hackney Marshes the next. I do not think your Lordships fully understand that he may go and see these beautiful dogs race any day in the week. It is the betting that matters. Your Lordships talk as if we are stopping this lovely sport. But it is only the betting on these days which is in question. I am quite certain that the noble Earl's Amendment would really spoil the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

May I attempt to clear up one point that is troubling me? As I understand the noble Earl's Amendment, his purpose is to remove altogether the fixing of the days from the local authority and leave it to those who are engaged in the business to fix them for themselves. That of course is a very different point. It does not strictly arise from the language of the Amendment before us, though it may be necessary to have it in order to pave the way for the Amendment with which we shall subsequently deal. The consequence is that we have been discussing Clause 9. In Clause 9 there is a provision giving the authority power to fix the days on which betting facilities may be provided, and in subsection (2) there is a provision that the days appointed shall be the same for the whole licensing area. I cannot help thinking there are some observations to be made with regard to this subsection when we get to it, but I cannot see that it has any relevance to this Amendment. The reason I am referring to it is that I was very much struck by what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Darcy (de Knayth), when he talked of the different considerations that would apply to Ramsgate and Rochester. I think there is some force in the observations which he made, and it may very well be that when we come to consider this part of Clause 9 a number of your Lordships may think it necessary to empower the licensing authority to distinguish between different parts of its area if it thinks right to do so. In that case you would get over this difficulty of suggesting that a man could go from one place to another and attend dog racing every day of the week.

My purpose at this moment is to point out to those who may think with me, without expressing any definite view upon it, that there is matter that requires to be considered in relation to the discrimination to be exercised by the licensing authority with regard to the days to be appointed in any area. We may object to imposing on the authority the obligation to fix once and for all, a year before, the number of days, and the days themselves, throughout the area, if it means they must be the same, as I read the Bill at the moment. However, that ought not to affect our views on this Amendment. I cannot see, however strongly I might differ from the language of this subsection (2) in Clause 9, that

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

clause 2 agreed to.

it would affect the Amendment put by the noble Earl, which in substance really means: Do not give it to the licensing authority, but leave it to those who control the undertakings themselves. With regard to that I can only say, for myself, I think the Government have made out a perfectly good case, and I intend to support them.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS.
Exeter, M.	Exmouth, V.	Greville, L.
Reading, M.	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Zetland, M.	Goschen, V.	Hampton, L.
	Hailsham, V.	Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Airlie, E.	Halifax, V.	Harlech, L.
Ancaster, E.	Mersey, V.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
Bradford, E.	Ullswater, V.	Kilmaine, L.
Buxton, E.		Kylsant, L.
Cavan, E.	London, L. Bp.	Luke, L.
De La Warr, E.		Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Dudley, E.	Alvingham, L.	Merrivale, L.
Effingham, E.	Arnold, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Feversham, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.	Polwarth, L.
Grey, E.	Bayford, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Biddulph, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Boston, L.	Rennell, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)	Rhayader, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.		Rochester, L.
Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Mount Edgeumbe, E.		Sanderson, L.
Munster, E.	Clinton, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Plymouth, E.	Clwyd, L.	Snell, L.
Stanhope, E.	Cornwallis, L.	Somerleyton, L.
	Cottesloe, L.	Stanmore, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Danesfort, L.	Stonehaven, L
	Denman, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Astor, V.	Ellenborough, L.
Chemsford, V.	Ernle, L.	Stratheden, L.
Esher, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]	Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Sutherland, D. [Teller.]	Hereford, V.	Hutchison of Monstrose, L. [Teller.]
	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queeensberry.)	Askwith, L.	Jessel, L.
	Carnock, L.	Lawrence, L.
Fortescue, E.	Carrington, L.	Monkswell, L.
Lindsay, E.	Cobham, L.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Midleton, E.	Darcy (de Knayth), L.	Palmer, L.
Peel, E.	Digby, L.	Raglan, L.
Radnor, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Redesdale, L.
Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)	Fairhaven, L.	Selsdon, L.
	Heneage, L.	Strachie, L.
Bertie of Thame, V.	Hindlip, L.	Wargrave, L.
		Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Clause 3:

Restriction of totalisator betting and prohibition of pool betting.

3.—(1) No person shall set up, keep or operate a totalisator other than a totalisator set up on an approved horse racecourse by, or by authority of, the Racecourse Betting Control Board in accordance with the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, or set up on a licensed track being a dog racecourse in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act which relate to totalisators on dog racecourses.

(2) Subject as hereinafter provided, no person shall, except while engaged in lawfully operating a totalisator, receive or negotiate bets to be made (whether by means of a totalisator or not) in accordance with the system of betting commonly known as pool betting or pari mutuel betting:

Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply with respect to the receipt or negotiation by any person of a bet on a horse race with a view to the bet being made by means of a totalisator operated by, or by the authority of, the Racecourse Betting Control Board in accordance with the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928.

(3) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, a bet shall not be taken to be made in accordance with the system of betting commonly known as Pool betting or pari mutuelbetting by reason only that it is made upon the terms that, if it is won, the amount payable to the winner shall be calculated by reference to the amounts payable to the winners of bets effected by means of a totalisator lawfully operated.

(4) Every person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

LORD SANDERSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "1928." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in strict line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to the introduction of the totalisator on greyhound tracks. My complaint about the Bill is that it does notfollow the Royal Commission closely enough. As your Lordships will remember, the Royal Commission felt very strongly on the question of totalisators all greyhound tracks which were then thought to be legal. So strongly did the Commission feel on the matter that their Interim Report dealt almost entirely with that question. They brought forward plenty of evidence in support of their opinion that the "tote" had a great effect in increasing gambling. There is no doubt gambling increased enormously during the short time that the "tote" was operating on the track, yet, notwithstanding that, the Government, as it seems to me, goes out of its way to make the "tote" legal once more on the track.

The object of the Bill, I imagine, is to remove inducements to betting and not to increase facilities for betting. That, I gathered, was the object from what the noble Marquess said in his speech in introducing the Bill. He more than once referred to the serious social consequences of betting. I cannot understand why, in those circumstances, the Government should think of making the "tote" legal on greyhound tracks once more. I listened very carefully to the noble Marquess's opening speech on the Second Reading, and I did not gather that he really argued the case, or attempted to explain to your Lordships why this step was being taken. He seemed to me, if I may say so, not very enthusiastic himself about this clause of the Bill, in fact he seemed almost apologetic about it. He did refer to safeguards, however. The noble Marquess seemed to imply that with the safeguards which were in the Bill any harm which the "tote" might do on greyhound tracks would be eliminated, but it was not at all clear to me what the safeguards were beyond the fact that the "tote" managers were to employ a skilled accountant and were to have a technical adviser, chosen by themselves. That, no doubt, as the noble Marquess said, would tend to make the totalisator less capable of being used fraudulently. It might make it more fraud-proof, but if you have it more fraud-proof it will then be a better gambling instrument and will be more popular as a gambling instrument. You will have a well-managed totalisator and that will encourage people to gamble, which is exactly, as I understand, what the Bill does not wish them to do.

There is no doubt that people prefer to gamble with the totalisator rather than with the bookmakers, and that is especially the case with regard to women, I believe. We heard on the Second Reading debate some evidence from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester of the serious increase in gambling among women in Manchester. No doubt we shall hear the old argument—if you have the totalisator on the horse racecourse why not on the dog course? The answer, as I suggested in the Second Reading debate, is that the totalisator on the dog track puts money into private pockets and gives an inducement to the track managers to encourage gambling, whereas the surplus from the totalisator on the horse racecourse is devoted to legi- timate objects which are laid down in an Act of Parliament. Another reason is that whereas horse racing is an old-established sport, and there is no doubt that it is a sport, dog racing is of very recent growth—it is only eight or nine years old—and, although some of your Lordships may not agree with me, I say definitely that it is not sport in the true sense of the word.

It is useless for the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, to remind your Lordships of the 40,000 people shouting and yelling at Wembley when they watched Mick the Miller run—I think that was the name of the dog. Why were those yells coming from those 40,000 throats? Because the people all had money on Mick the Miller or on one of its rivals. They were shouting for Mick the Miller to get on with it or shouting for one of its rivals. How many shouts would there have been if betting had not been allowed on that course? How many of the 40,000 people would have been there at all? The whole object of the thing is betting and the tracks are, as they have been well described, nothing more than open-air casinos. I hope the noble Marquess will think again, and accept my Amendment and decide not to take a part in setting up this new gambling facility which must have very bad social effects over a large part of the country.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 5, leave out from ("1928") to the end of the subsection.—(Lord Sanderson.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved deals with the question of the totalisator and he at the same time puts forward a suggestion that the Government should adhere to the proposals of the Royal Commission. I must apologise to the noble Lord for not having made myself clear in my Second Reading speech. I think he said that I did not refer to the matter with any enthusiasm. I can assure the noble Lord that betting facilities are not received by me with enthusiasm. In fact, owing to the official position which I hold at present and my own inclinations, I am prepared to do anything in my power to restrict betting throughout the country. In connection with the totalisator, however, I think I should make it clear to the noble Lord that the Government have been much impressed by the force of the contention that if betting at greyhound tracks is to be allowed the backer should not be deprived of the alternative form of betting provided by the totalisator. It is an alternative form of betting which has come into being in the last few years, and it is in the view of the Government the right of a person who bets to have the opportunity of betting by means of the totalisator as well as through the bookmakers.

I should like also to restore the noble Lord's confidence that no undue harm is being done by this adoption of a principle which was not included in the recommendations of the Royal Commission, by saying that the undesirable development with which the totalisator at greyhound tracks has in the past been associated can be checked by regulations incorporated in the Bill. I venture to suggest to the noble Lord that he should study the First Schedule, which deals with the operation of the totalisator in connection with greyhound racing. The restrictions and the regulations which have been put into that Schedule I think, or at least I hope, will convince the noble Lord that the totalisator will be operated in a manner which will not give rise to those irregularities which are in his mind and which could most certainly occur if the regulations were not stringent. I hope I have convinced the noble Lord that the reason why the totalisator has been included in this Bill is that the alternative method of betting is desired by the public, and we feel that the safeguards incorporated in the Bill are sufficient to prevent any irregularities occurring in the management and operation of the totalisator.

LORD SANDERSON

I thank the noble Marquess very much for his reply, but I am sorry to say he has left me quite unconvinced. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SANDERSON moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after the first "bet," to insert "made on an approved horse racecourse." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is also intended to bring the Bill into line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I am not moving against betting off the course but against betting off the course through the totalisator on the course. I understand that a great deal of betting is done in that way now because the Betting Control Board encourages people to make bets off the course which are sent in to the "tote" on the course. The Royal Commission were very much against that and they definitely laid down that that should not go on. It means that part of the surplus from betting through the totalisator on the racecourse goes in commissions to people for arranging bets off the course which are dealt with through the totalisator. That, according to the Commission and I think quite rightly, was never intended by the Act of 1928. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 17, after ("bet") insert ("made on an approved horse racecourse").—(Lord Sanderson.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Amendment which the noble Lord hits moved deals with off-the-course betting. I think he is aware, as all your Lordships are, that this description of betting has not been included in the present Bill. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships will criticise the Bill from that point of view, and will feel that in a measure of this description the whole area of betting should have been considered, and that it should have been included in one large measure. I informed your Lordships on the Second Reading of the Bill, that we found it impossible, owing to lack of time and other reasons, to incorporate in one large comprehensive measure the whole question of betting on the course and off-the course betting. Unfortunately—I agree that it is unfortunate—we have not been able to deal with off-the-course betting, and consequently the question which the noble Lord has mentioned in his Amendment really does not arise, because it is not necessary expressly to authorise the operation of agencies which collect bets off the course and transmit them to the totalisator.

The next Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper is for the purpose of regularising on-the-course and off-the-course betting which would have been made illegal by the Bill, but which the Government have decided to ask your Lordships to alter by the Amendment which I shall move next. Therefore the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved does not actually arise on this measure.

LORD SANDERSON

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to leave out Clause 3, and insert the following new clause:—

Restriction of totalisator betting and other pari mutuel betting.

3.—(1) No pari mutuel betting business shall be carried on on any track, except—

1. (a) on an approved horse racecourse, by, or by authority of, the Racecourse Betting Control Board under the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, as amended by this Act, or
2. (b) on a licensed track being a dog racecourse, in accordance with the provisions of this Act which relate to totalisators on dog racecourses:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a person from receiving or negotiating bets on an approved horse racecourse with a view to those bets being made by means of a totalisator lawfully operated on that course.

(2) No person shall use any premises not situate on a track, or cause or permit any such premises to be used as a place where persons resorting thereto may effect pari mutuel transactions.

(3) Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any provision of the Betting Act, 1853."

The noble Marquess said: The Amendment which I have now to move, and which proposes to leave out the existing Clause 3 and to substitute the clause which is set out on the Order Paper, is in fulfilment of the undertaking which I gave when I moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I ventured upon that occasion to explain the reasons which had led the Government to propose in the Bill that pari mutuel betting off the course should be prohibited absolutely. The effect of such a prohibition would have been to bring to an end football combination betting and off-the-course betting on horse races which is conducted on the pari mutuel principle. I said upon that occasion that the Government had reconsidered the matter since the introduction of the Bill, and that for the reasons which I detailed upon that occasion, the Government proposed to move Amendments at the Committee stage for the purpose of allowing the continuance of office pari mutuel betting in the forms in which it is at present lawfully conducted in connection with such sports as horse-racing and football matches.

The new clause which I venture to move may be divided into two parts. Subsection (1) of the clause deals with pari mutuel betting on the course. It prohibits all betting on the pari mutuel system save, first of all, on an approved horse racecourse, conducted by the Racecourse Betting Control Board, and secondly, on a licensed dog racecourse, under the provisions of the Bill. The proviso to subsection (1) maintains the existing position under which it is legal for agencies such at Tote Investors, Limited, to receive and negotiate bets from their clients on a horse racecourse with a view to the transmission of the bets to a totalisator operated on that racecourse by the Racecourse Betting Control Board. So far as totalisator or pari mutuel betting is concerned, the trouble in the past has been that the law was not clear. It was not until December, 1932, that the High Court, in the ease of Shuttleworth versus Leeds Greyhound Racing Association, decided that totalisator betting on greyhound tracks was unlawful. In the opinion of the Government it is desirable with a view to avoiding any possibility of misunderstanding in the future that Parliament should enact in the most explicit terms the only conditions under which totalisator or pari mutuel betting on the course can lawfully be conducted.

Subsection (2) of the clause deals with pari mutuel betting off the course, and prohibits the use of any premises off the course as a place where persons resorting thereto may effect pari mutuel transactions. The object of this provision is to make it clear that anything in the nature of a "tote" club (whether conducted on cash terms or credit terms) is definitely illegal. As was pointed out by the Royal Commission, the real mischief of "tote" clubs is that persons resort there and are induced to gamble continuously on a succession of races, ft is an offence under the first part of Section 1 of the Betting Act, 1853, to keep a place to which persons resort for the purpose of betting with the keeper; but it has been held by the Courts that persons who resort to a place for betting on the totalisator or pari mutuel principle are not betting with the keeper of the place. There is as a result a pos- sible loophole in the existing law, which this Amendment is designed to stop up. The mischiefs arising from what are commonly called "tote" clubs are so serious and so well recognised that the Government believe that there will be general agreement with this provision in the Bill, which is designed expressly for the purpose of preventing a recrudescence of these clubs. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 3 and insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

LORD ASKWITH moved, in paragraph (b) of the proposed new clause, to leave out all words after "racecourse." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment, not with the object of pressing it, but in order to ask the noble Marquess to consider before the Report stage the drafting and meaning of this new clause which he has moved to insert. I do not say anything about the rather obscure wording of subsection (1) and the proviso, which really, from the legal point of view, I do not fully understand; nor do I understand the effect of putting at the end of the clause: "Nothing in this section affects the operation of any provision of the Betting Act, 1853." The Betting Act, 1853."is one which is contrary in principle to the pari mutuel. The pari mutuel is allowed by this clause in certain circumstances, but it is not a credit pool, which the Betting Act, 1853, allows.

But I concentrate upon the words "on a licensed track being a dog racecourse, in accordance with the provisions of this Act which relate to totalisators on dog racecourses." If the Bill passes containing this clause as it appears on the Order Paper it will be subject to the Schedule, and the first paragraph of the First Schedule provides that: A totalisator set up under this Act on a dog racecourse shall be a mechanically or electrically operated apparatus…. Pari mutuel betting cannot be, or rather I believe that only in a few cases by very expensive machinery can it be, operated by such a machine. Yet this clause proposes to permit pari mutuel betting in certain circumstances, and in a disguised form. I am sure the noble Marquess would not like to stop by one clause the very thing which is given by another clause. If the Schedule stands, this clause is perfectly useless.

Amendment to the proposed new clause moved— In line 7 of subsection (1) leave out from ("racecourse") to the end of paragraph (b)—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD RAGLAN

It is very desirable that Acts of Parliament should be drafted in the King's English, and I venture to think that this clause does not fulfil that requirement. The phrase "with a view to those bets being made" seems to me to be ungrammatical; and I am not at all sure that you can "receive" a bet. A bet is a transaction between two or more persons. I venture to hope that the noble Marquess will consider whether the wording of this clause cannot be improved.

LORD STRABOLGI

May I ask the noble Marquess to explain another point in connection with this matter, and I think this applies also to the Amendment moved by Lord Askwith? I would ask him to look at subsection (2). This could happen. You could have on premises licensed as a dog-racing track an office where bets could be made, and that is quite legal. It is on-the-course betting. Now the Government say that betting on dog racing is very wicked, except on two days of the week. What is to prevent evilly-disposed persons, suffering the deterioration of character which so upsets the noble Marquess and causes him to deplore these terrible things in the country, from resorting on the other four days of the week to some office on a licensed dog track and laying bets by telephone or telegram to agents in the next county in regard to dog racing in that county, or, for instance, persons resorting to the Wigan dog-racing track and laying bets at Wembley or Shoreditch, or in a Yorkshire town, and enjoying this nefarious practice on six nights every week? I suggest to the noble Marquess that he has left a loophole here which should be looked into. No one thought that "tote" clubs would spring up in the way they did, and I think that this is a matter which requires explanation or examination

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I do not like the statement to pass without challenge that this Amendment will permit betting by pari mutuel on football matches, because I am informed that Clause 4 will require amendment before such betting is permitted.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

If the Amendment moved by Lord Ask with were accepted the new Clause 3 would read as follows: No pari mutuel betting business shall be carried on on any track except—

1. (a)
2. (b) on a licensed track being a dog-racecourse."

The effect of the Amendment would be to allow pari mutuel betting businesses to be carried on on licensed dog racecourses without being made subject to the provisions of the Act which relate to the operation of totalisators on dog racecourses. Lord Askwith does not appear to propose the deletion of Clause 10, which provides for the establishment of totalisators on dog racecourses, and it is therefore not very easy to determine exactly what he has in mind by his present Amendment. He seems to intend that on any licensed dog race track betting on the pari mutuel system, whether by means of a totalisator or by means of a bookmaker, should be allowed free of any restriction. The Government certainly could not accept this proposal. Totalisator betting offers scope for fraudulent practices, and could not be allowed except subject to a scheme of supervision and control.

Lord Askwith may, however, not intend to be so far-reaching by his Amendment. It is possible that he has in mind that totalisators on dog racecourses should not necessarily be "mechanically or electrically operated apparatus complying with such conditions as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe," as provided for in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule. If that is his intention, the Amendment must nevertheless be resisted. The scheme of control contemplated in the First Schedule makes it essential that the totalisator on the dog racecourse should be mechanically or electrically operated, and that it should be capable of indicating at a glance the total amounts staked on each competitor in each race. Unless provision were made for this, it would be impossible to provide any effective machinery for ensuring that the totalisator on dog racecourses is operated on honest lines.

With reference to the speech made by Lord Raglan, I will certainly make his representations known to my advisers, but I am certain that the noble Lord knows better than I do what are racing terms, and will perhaps co-operate with me as to the phraseology to be put in to secure the objects which we have in view. In regard to the speech of Lord Strabolgi, I refrained on a previous Amendment from making any reply to him, and perhaps I should do so now. I am not quite sure whether on broad principles he is in favour of betting and considers that I am opposed to betting, and that, therefore, we are on different sides on this question. His sarcastic remarks were very interesting to listen to, but did not perturb me. If he is in favour of betting I am afraid I cannot help him. Under the Bill off-the-course betting remains as now, and as I ventured to inform your Lordships, with great regret on my part, we were unable to deal with the whole question of betting in this Bill.

LORD STRABOLGI

I am sorry that the noble Marquess thought I was trying to be sarcastic. I was trying to point out to him that there was a loophole in this clause, and a very grave one. As the new clause is drawn you can have on a dog-racing track, or a horse-racing track, premises which can be used all the week for betting every night, although you only allow betting on the racing on that particular track on two nights a week. You can use it as a clearing house for betting on other tracks. As the new clause is drawn that will be possible, and will be legalised. The point does not arise whether we are in favour of betting or against it. Personally I never bet, but I am very reluctant to interfere with other people who find it their only relaxation in a somewhat monotonous life. There is this loophole, and I should have thought that the noble Marquess would have been very grateful to me for pointing out an obvious defect.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I would refer the noble Lord to Clause 10, paragraph (b), which I think covers the point as far as the totalisator is concerned.

LORD ASKWITH

After the criticism of three noble Lords that this clause is drafted with considerable ambiguity and ignorance, I trust that it will be further considered. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed new clause, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

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 licence under this Part of this Act authorising the provision of betting facilities on tracks:

Provided that—

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

I understand that Lord Kinnoull does not move his Amendment on the Paper. The next Amendment, therefore, is a manuscript Amendment in the name of Lord Jessel, proposing at page 3, line 32, to leave out "councils of administrative counties and the councils of county boroughs" and insert "the Committee appointed by Quarter Sessions under Section 6 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910." Then the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, has an Amendment in page 3, line 33, to leave out "county"; so that, with your Lordships' permission, I will put the Amendment down to "councils of administrative counties and the councils of," leaving the other words for a subsequent occasion.

LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "councils of administrative counties and the councils of county boroughs" and insert "the Committee appointed by Quarter Sessions under Section 6 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910." The noble Lord said: I must apologise for proposing a manuscript Amendment, but what it really amounts to is the County Licensing Committee. I might explain the reason why I put down this Amendment. At the time of the Second Reading the London County Council unanimously passed a Motion stating that the proposal to place on local authorities the duty of licensing betting on dog tracks is a new departure in local government. That resolution was quoted to the House by my noble friend Lord Snell, the Chairman of the London County Council. I was therefore moved to find out some other measure of dealing with this difficult question of licensing, and I first of all proposed to substitute"licensing justices." On further consideration, however, I realised that in London there are sixteen petty sessional divisons, and it would have been out of place for all these sixteen petty sessional divisions to adjudicate on an important matter of this kind.

There is set up at Quarter Sessions a Committee called the Licensing Committee, composed of two or three representatives from each magisterial bench in the county—and what I say of London applies to other counties. That is the confirming authority far licences, and also the compensation authority. It is, therefore, a very responsible body. I put that down as the authority because I understood from certain remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, who replied on behalf of the Government on the Second Reading, that they did not like the suggestion of the Standing Joint Committee made by Lord Amulree. In asking your Lordships to approve of this Amendment I am only going back to a precedent under which the duty of licensing racecourses within ten miles of Charing Cross was given to Quarter Sessions by the Racecourse Licensing Act of 1879. The reason why one wishes to propose some alternative method of licensing is that many of us who are engaged in local government think that this is a most invidious duty to discharge. You might have a tremendous lot of local feeling at election time, which would quite prejudice the election, whereas the matter is really ohe for calm judicial consideration.

I do not want to go on to Clause 9, but there again if you are going to put on the licensing authority the onus of settling the days, there will be a tremendous dispute as to what particular days should be settled. There would be a great deal of log-rolling, I am afraid, and it would not be in the public interest. I therefore think that the body to be appointed should be some judicial authority like the Licensing Committee of Quarter Sessions. They could, ofcourse, hear the evidence of the local authorities and the police and other people who wish to come before them.

Amendment moved— Clause 4, page 3, line 32, leave out ("councils of administrative counties and the councils of county boroughs") and insert ("the Committee appointed by Quarter Sessions under Section six of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910.—(Lord Jessel.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

This Amendment is moved in connection with the views of the London County Council who have formally resolved that the licensing functions under the Bill Are properly police functions and should not be imposed on local authorities. I am bound to say I regret the view taken by those who discharge such onerous and important duties, because one would have thought that an important matter of this kind did properly come within their purview.

The effect of the Amendment would be to substitute as the licensing authority Quarter Sessions or a committee of Quarter Sessions appointed under the Licensing Acts, which has certain functions in connection with the extinction of liquor licences. In substance, the proposal is to substitute a non-elected body for the locally elected bodies proposed in the Bill. Apart from questions such as the possibility of organised vested interests being able to bring improper influences to bear on an elected body, there can be no doubt that in this case the elected body—namely, the county council or county borough council—is better qualified to exercise the licensing functions than Quarter Sessions or a committee thereof. The county council is accustomed to deal with questions of amenities or of the health and comfort of local residents. Likewise it is familiar with traffic problems. Quarter Sessions has no similar experience on which to draw, still less its committee on liquor licensing matters, which is concerned with a very limited class of liquor licensing cases. Even apart from experience, the county council is more fitted than Quarter Sessions to assess the issue whether the licensing of a track would impair the amenities of neighbourhood, or seriously injure the health and comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood.

As to the contention that Quarter Sessions (or its committee), even if less experienced and less qualified than the county council, would be less open to pressure, it must be remembered that the Government have not left a completely open issue to the licensing authority. Under the provisions of Clause 6 a licensing authority must grant a licence, unless it is satisfied on one of four grounds which are set out in the Bill; and if the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence it must state in writing on which of these grounds it has refused the grant of a licence. We feel confident that in narrowing the issue in this way it has removed the main objection to a function of this kind being exercised by an elected body, and therefore I ask the House to reject this Amendment, which we certainly believe to be based on ill-grounded fears. I would also add that the objection which is raised by the London County Council is not shared by other county councils, and I hope therefore your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I feel some difficulty in dealing with this Amendment becaues I am not sure I appreciate all that is implied in the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, but I confess, after listening to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill, I would prefer the proposal of Lord Jessel to that of the Government. Notwithstanding that I want to give every support to the Government, it seems to me most undesirable that you should leave to an elected body the determination of such questions as will come before this licensing authority. If it is left to a body of magistrates, either in Quarter Sessions or a body of magistrates selected in some particular way, totally different considerations will apply, and it must be remembered also that some of the functions which this licensing authority will have to discharge are really judicial.

The noble Marquess has given every consideration to the Bill, but I am not sure that he has fully borne in mind Clause 15, which deals with revocation. There are matters to be considered in relation to the revocation of a licence by this licensing authority. They have to enquire into facts; they must come to conclusions; the licensing authority must determine for the purpose certain points. What is provided under Clause 15 is this: 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—

1. (a) if they are satisfied that the track has been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance; or
2. (b) 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
3. (c) if the holder of the licence is convicted of any offence (whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act) in connection with the management of the track,"

and so on. I shall not trouble your Lordships with all the details of the clause, but it is obvious the moment you look at it that these are matters which should be dealt with by magistrates and not by bodies like county councils.

I would therefore beg the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill to give this matter further consideration in order that some authority may be determined upon which will enable this question of licensing to be dealt with by a non-elected body instead of an elected body. We have heard that the London County Council has strong objections. I do not know enough about the views of other county councils; but surely that is a very important body and its opinion must be taken into account? Without pressing the matter unless we are compelled to do so by the Government, I would really ask them to consider whether it is not possible to change this licensing authority. I cannot say more than that. I have no doubt it has been very carefully considered already, but I believe your Lordships cannot contemplate with equanimity the con- ferring upon an elected body an obligation to deal with various matters in relation to what is undoubtedly a popular pastime among a great many persons, which will expose that body to all the kinds of observations that can be made and are made at elections, with all the misrepresentation that is involved. The whole matter seems properly to be one that should be dealt with by persons who are there in a judicial capacity, and the last thing you want to do is to confer on those who are elected and have to be reelected an obligation to deal with matters of a judicial character. If the matter is forced to a Division, I should be bound to give effect to the views I have expressed, although I would much prefer to have the matter reconsidered, if that is possible.

LORD BAYFORD

I intervene because the noble Marquess opposite has said he did not know what the views of the other county councils were. I have an Amendment down later which was put down on behalf of the Association of County Councils. That association excludes the London County Council, but it includes all the rest of the county councils of England and Wales. I was surprised to hear the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill say that the county councils, excluding the London County Council, do not object to the proposal in the Bill. They do object, and it is because they object that they have framed this Amendment which stands in my name. I think their opinion should be given some weight. After all, they are asked to carry out a great many functions in one way or another, and I think that on the whole they have carried out those functions pretty willingly even when they would rather not have had them thrust upon them. When they say that they think that a particular duty—I shall not say ought not to be thrust upon them, but ought to be put on them in a different way, then I think their opinion is worthy of a good deal of consideration. The county councils object to this proposal that they should have the licensing power put in their hands, and that is the reason why my Amendment appears on the Paper. I leave out the London County Council; I cannot speak for them at all.

The county councils object to this proposal on the ground mentioned by the noble Marquess opposite—namely, that it is a very invidious thing to ask a man who has to stand for popular election to give a vote where his conscience may conflict with his electoral interests. They want to avoid, if possible, being put in that very invidious position. My proposal is that it should be put in the hands of the Standing Joint Committee. One objection to that has been that the Standing Joint Committee has no staff whereas the county council has a staff that could be used for the purpose. That seems to me to be exactly the contrary of the fact. The county council have not a staff that is able to tell as to the suitability or popularity of a dog track in a particular area. On the other hand, a Standing Joint Committee has the Police under its orders, and if you want to know whether there is any objection to an institution of that sort in a particular district or whether it is likely to be popular or not in a district, I cannot think of any body more suitable to ask than the local body, through the staff under the Standing Joint Committee. The Standing Joint Committee would go to the local inspector, and would get better evidence from him than, I think, any elected body could possibly get.

It is said that if you put it in the hands of the Standing Joint Committee it is possible that the magistrates sitting on that body may have to adjudicate later on upon some question connected with an appeal. That happens time after time. It is the regular thing with every country bench, when a ease comes up in which any matter affecting the county council is concerned and a county councillor happens to be a member of the bench, he does not sit when that case is tried. That difficulty is really no difficulty at all. I do not care for Lord Jessel's Amendment.

LORD JESSEL

It only really applies to London.

LORD BAYFORD

As I do not know about London I cannot speak for it, but as regards the country county councils I am absolutely convinced that it would be much better that this should be in the hands of the Standing Joint Committees.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I have come down to-day on purpose to support the Government. I have done so on every Division, but I regret to say that if there is a Division now I must support my noble friend behind me (Lord Jessel) and my noble friend on my left (Lord Bayford), for this very simple reason. You are going to put an unpopular action into the hands of a popularly elected body. The county councils are very important bodies and are elected to carry out very important work. They are elected by an enormous number of people, moved by all sorts of opinions. Many of these people may be annoyed because they think they might have won a little money on dog racing and that my noble friend's Bill prevented it. Consequently, when a county council election comes, they will vote not on the subjects which are before them but on some personal grievance that Mr. Jones voted for dog racing here instead of dog racing there. It cannot be denied, I think, that the Committee proposed either by my noble friend Lord Jessel or by my noble friend Lord Bayford is quite as good as any county council, and I do not see why it would not be much wiser to accept one of these proposals instead of leaving the matter to the county council.

LORD POLWARTH

I need not amplify what has already been said by the noble Marquess opposite and by the two noble Lords on my right. May I, as Chairman of a county council in Scotland, say that I think that this will be an extremely difficult task to put upon our county councils, and that it will lead to an immense amount of trouble and complication? In the county council of which I am a member there is only one side of the district where any proposals for a racing track would be likely to be made, and we should have the members from all the rest of the county called upon to vote upon this question. It seems to me, with all the restrictions laid down as to licensing, that it is much more a judicial than an administrative function. It is true that in Scotland we do not have Standing Joint Committees—they have been abolished—but we do have a licensing body composed partly of magistrates and partly of representatives elected by the county council—half and half—and a body like that, it seems to me, would be far better fitted to deal with this question than having it decided by a vote of all the members of a county council.

LORD SNELL

There is a Motion on the Order Paper in my name for the deletion of this clause, but it will perhaps be more convenient to your Lord- ships if, at this stage, I explained the reason why that Motion is to be proposed. Your Lordships will remember that when the Second Reading of this Bill took place I attempted to put before you, with courtesy I hope, the position of a great public body, and I asked His Majesty's Government if it would be good enough to take this consideration into account and make some effort to meet what was a really serious feeling of apprehension. It is not in the power of the London County Council to command the courtesy of His Majesty's Government, but we might have expected that some attempt would have been made to meet a position seriously put forward. As no attempt has been made, as it has been ignored, I have had to put a Motion on the Paper for the deletion of this clause.

May I once again state very shortly our position in the matter? It is not, as the noble Marquess seemed to state, a desire to escape any public duty even though that duty is an unwelcome one. It is a feeling that an elected body such as the London County Council is not an appropriate body to license betting. In his speech the noble Marquess spoke about licensing a track. That is not the position of the county council. It is perfectly willing to take responsibility for saying whether a track shall be established or not, or whether it can be licensed or not. Its position in this matter is limited strictly to the question of licensing betting, and it says that that function has hitherto not been a function of local government and especially as, in London at any rate, we have no control as a public body over the Police force, it would be appropriate, at any rate for London, that these duties should be under the control of the Commissioner of Police or some other authority of that kind. I submit that that position is a reasonable one to take.

The noble Marquess said that our apprehensions were not shared by other county councils. The noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has made some comment upon that statement, but, even if it were accepted as correct, there is this to remember, that other councils have some control over their Police whereas the London County Council has no such control. I desire, therefore, to say that if elected bodies were the authorities to license betting there would be not only the dangers which have been suggested by previous speakers, but the very serious danger of organised efforts on the part of bookmakers to sway an election, to pervert an opportunity to their needs. We are quite unwilling to put the good government of London, its health and efficiency and education and all the rest of it, at the hazard of these guileless gentlemen who conduct these betting operations. Hitherto, breaches of the Acts relating to betting have been dealt with by the Police and we suggest that the Police, or a body working in close contact with the Police, should be the authority to control betting under this Bill.

As an illustration of a body working in close contact with the Police I would mention the licensing justices. They deal with public-house licences. Prosecutions for breaches of those licences are dealt with as a rule by the Police. The Police authorities in England and Wales are roughly as follows: For the City of London, the Commissioner of the City Police; for the Metropolitan area, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; for the county areas, outside the Metropolitan Police area, the Standing Joint Committees of the County Council and the magistrates; for county boroughs and other boroughs maintaining their own Police, the Watch Committees appointed by the borough councils. That, therefore, is the position of the London County Council, speaking as it believes for bodies other than itself. It is not a desire to escape a duty which Parliament may wish to place upon it, but a desire to ask Parliament whether this is a proper function which ought to be placed upon it.

EARL PEEL

I do not know whether the noble Marquess has been so impressed by the weight of the opinions which have been voiced that he wishes to give way upon this Amendment, but however that may be I should like in a word to say how cordially as a predecessor of the noble Lord opposite I support the view he has expressed about the position in London. I do not think that when the Bill was drawn the position of London can have been really considered. London, I think, had been forgotten. I desire also to associate myself with what, has been said by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, about judicial functions being performed by local authorities.

The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, in speaking on the subject, was rather more ready, I thought, to criticise the proposal of my noble friend Lord Jessel than to establish positively the virtues of county councils for the purpose of discharging these functions. He made what I thought was a rather remarkable observation. He said: "We have limited their discretion as regards the granting of licences." Therefore he does not give them full discretion. According to Clause 6 of the Bill they may refuse to grant licences in certain circumstances. Presumably if the conditions are fulfilled they must grant licences. Therefore their discretion is limited. I would like, however, to call attention to the fact that the points on which they have to exercise discretion are very wide, and taking them altogether a very large amount of discretion is left to these local authorities to do as they like.

I am bound to say that I dissent very strongly from the idea that these elected bodies are the proper bodies to discharge these functions. They already have an enormous weight of duty to perform. Speaking with long experience of the London County Council, I say most definitely that the duties of a judicial character which they have to perform are not the duties in which they show their best skill. Having that experience behind me, I strongly urge the noble Marquess to reconsider this matter. I think he will be making a great mistake if he still retains this part of the Bill laying these duties on local authorities, and I hope he will see his way to alter the authority that is to exercise this high and difficult judicial function.

LORD RAGLAN

I entirely agree with what has been said as to the undesirability of conferring judicial functions on elected bodies, and I would point out that these objections apply to Standing Joint Committees as well as to county councils. Standing Joint Committees include among their members 50 per cent. of elected members. I therefore hope your Lordships will support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, rather than the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford.

LORD MERRIVALE

I should not have intervened in this discussion had it not been that for some years I have been Chairman of Quarter Sessions and happen also to be a member of a Standing Joint Committee. I agree entirely with what was said by my noble and learned friend the Marquess of Reading as to placing these difficult duties upon elected bodies. It means putting on them a burden which may lead to very great trouble. Anybody who realises what is involved here will see that there will be great embarrassment for them. On the other hand, I greatly doubt whether the kind of duties which are in question here are judicial duties in the sense that they can be discharged by a Court of Quarter Sessions. My strong impression is that they could not. I have great difficulty in seeing how the courts could make the necessary inquiries. If you have a judicial duty to discharge you must use every available means to see that justice is done. That must be the governing consideration. On the other hand, there are in existence Standing Joint Committees half of whom are magistrates while the other half are not elected members but nominated members, which is a very different thing. If you are endeavouring to find a body which can exercise independence and can show proper self-control in dealing with these functions which combine judicial and administrative tasks, my own impression is that what is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, is a possible practical solution.

LORD JESSEL

Before the noble Marquess replies, I should like to ask him, in the event of his being willing to take back this portion of the Bill for reconsideration, to bear in mind that London always has had different legislation. What suits other parts of the country does not suit London, and vice versa. Outside London Standing Joint Committees might suit the counties, but as regards London it would be the Licensing Committee of Quarter Sessions. I would ask the noble Marquess to bear this in mind.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I would like to ask how the financial cost is to be met. This would mean a considerable addition to the staff of the Standing Joint Committee or of the county council.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

No, no.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I think it would, and that it would be rather expert staff.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

I should like to say how very much impressed I was by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, which was so extraordinarily earnest and straightforward. It is the task of the Church to act as mediator, and I am going to make a suggestion which may meet the case. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading I brought forward what seemed to me to be a very striking case of a dog track that was going to be established. I may tell you now that the proposal was to turn the Oval into a dog track. I managed by expostulation to stop it. That was a private venture of my own. I say that the county council, or some body which represents the people, should be bound to consider where a track should be placed. If you look at Clause 6, who is to settle whether it "would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood of the track"? Certainly not the licensing justices at all, I should think.

LORD JESSEL

The local authorities.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

Who is to decide whether it "would seriously impair the amenities of that neighbourhood"? My suggestion is—and I am sure the county councils would not mind—that they should decide whether it is right to have the track, and then that any regulation about betting and gambling should surely be put into the hands of the Police. But I do say, do not let us be afraid of our responsibilities. It is the local people who should settle whether the dog track should come or not.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The noble Lord who sits on the opposite Bench was, in his speech, making somewhat of an indictment of myself and of the Government, although I am sure that he did not appreciate the seriousness which might be involved in such an indictment. But I would venture respectfully to point out to him that the advantage of our Parliamentary system is that we do have a Committee stage; that a Bill is brought forward on a Motion for Second Reading which invites discussion all over the House, and can afterwards be considered with more deliberation and for a longer time on the Committee stage. I can assure him that the very eloquent speech which he made on Second Reading was by no means ignored or placed on one side. It was very carefully considered, but we certainly felt that the proper occasion upon which we should discuss this matter would be on the Report stage. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the valuable speech which he made in connection with this matter. There is only one thing which I should like to say, and that is that my noble friend who sits behind me, Lord Bayford, did not deny to the county councils the right to adjudicate upon these matters, but his Amendment gives them power to delegate their authority to Quarter Sessions.

LORD BAYFORD

No, to the Standing Joint Committees.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Yes, to the Standing Joint Committees. I can assure your Lordships that I have been very much impressed by the discussion which has taken place, and I think that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has made a most valuable suggestion. With your Lordships' concurrence I will accept the suggestion which has been made by the noble Marquess and see that this matter is very carefully considered between this stage and the Report stage. Those matters which have been put forward by noble Lords in different parts of the House will be very carefully considered and weighed, and I shall then be able, with my advisers, to come to some decision as to the course which the Government should pursue in connection with this very important matter.

LORD JESSEL

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "county" ["county boroughs"]. The noble Earl said: In rising upon this occasion to address your Lordships for the first time, I venture to ask for that indulgence which is always so generously accorded in such circumstances. It is a small point which I put forward in this Amendment, which is different from that which was under discussion just now. I wish particularly to invite attention to the tendency of recent legislation to ignore the non-county borough. The Amendment which stands in my name, to omit the word "county" in line 33 on page 3, is designed to remedy this state of affairs. As those who are engaged in the local government of this country or who have given thought to the question of the organisation of local government generally, will know very well, there are many boroughs which are not county boroughs—such important towns as Bedford, Luton, Scarborough, Stockton-on-Tees, Cambridge, Chesterfield and Cheltenham, to mention only a few, as well as county towns such as Aylesbury, Hereford, Lancaster and Winchester. There are in addition large suburban boroughs such as Ealing, Walthamstow and Ilford.

I would ask: Is it seriously contended that such boroughs are not just as competent to conduct their own affairs, and to act as the licensing authority under a Bill of this description, as others? Surely they know far better than the county council what is best in the interests of their inhabitants. They have the soundest knowledge of local conditions and are best able to judge as to what is or is not desirable to be done in the interests of their own borough. It is for this reason that I would favour the power being given to them rather than to the licensing justices or an ad hoc body. As it is at present, in such places the licensing powers under Clause 4 (1) of the Bill will lie in the hands of the county council; this clause vesting the power in the councils of administrative counties and councils of county boroughs. If therefore the clause is retained—before a further stage of the Bill the noble Marquess may reconsider it, but if it is retained on reconsideration—I trust that the noble Marquess, or whoever it may be into whose hands the Bill is entrusted, will take into consideration the question of these smaller boroughs. It is true that some of the boroughs are very small in size and are not the Police authorities, but even so I venture to include them as well. It is my earnest wish, as it is the wish of those with whom I am associated, that in this Bill your Lordships' House should give a lead which will be followed in future legislation, by agreeing to this Amendment to include the non-county boroughs as licensing authorities under the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 33, leave out ("county").— (The Earl of Courtown.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I am sure your Lordships will desire me to congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech, and to say how much we hope he will take part in our debates in future. With reference to the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved, I would venture to say to him that it is included in the undertaking which I gave a few moments ago to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that the whole of this question will be considered by the Government between now and the Report stage, and that those matters which he has raised in debate will have our consideration when that time comes.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD JESSEL had given Notice that he would move to leave out the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this Amendment.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

This Amendment stands in my name as well, I think. In view of what the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, has said, I do not propose to say more than about two sentences, but the point of view which I would like o put is this. I do not like the idea of neighbouring councils having a finger in the pie of licences. The neighbouring council may possess a dog track itself, or it may be a rural council and have no interest at all in, nor any sympathy with, dog racing. Therefore I think that if you are going to retain councils as the licensing authority at all, they should be the individual local councils themselves. They are the people to do the job. They do know the amenities of the district and everything else connected with it. I do not propose to move the Amendment.

LORD BAYFORD had given Notice that he would move, in proviso (a) in subsection (1), to leave out "to a committee" and insert "either to an existing committee or to a committee specially appointed for the purpose, in each case." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is just a drafting Amendment. There seems to be some doubt whether such a committee could be appointed, under the words of the clause. I would merely ask the noble Marquess whether he will look into it, and if he will give me that assurance I will not move this Amendment, nor the next one which appears in my name on the Order Paper.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

May I say one word or two with regard to the Amendment, which appears in my name as well as in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford? The whole point is that, in the Bill as it is drafted, it is not clear whether the county council have power to delegate their duties to an existing committee. I am sure that every noble Lord who has taken an active part in local government administration will agree that the multiplication of these committees is regarded with perfect horror. Therefore I suggest that if there is any doubt about it the noble Marquess should be good enough to adopt the suggestion that pending further negotiations with the authorities, he should accept the words "an existing committee." I know the very committee to which in my own county these powers would probably be delegated.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord, Lord Balford, has given notice of an Amendment in line 41?

LORD BAYFORD

I do not move that.

THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection: () The charge of admission to any part of the track for a bookmaker shall not be less than £1 10s. per meeting, nor more than £5 per meeting. The noble Earl said: I gather from your Lordships' speeches, to-night, that the one thing you are particularly anxious to secure is the clean running of the various tracks, even although they are only to be allowed to have 104 days of racing in the year. This Amendment is drawn with that in view, and with a view particularly of helping some of the smaller country tracks, which are also run under strict control. At some of these the average price of admission is only 1s. and at some of the large ones it is as low as 6d., while the average charge for admission to a horse-race track is approximately 7s. or 8s. In the interests of the public it is essential that the bookmaker should be the best of his class and not of the "welsher" type. Under Clause 12 it is proposed that only five times the entrance price to the course shall be charged as the entrance price for the bookmaker. It is possible that such small entrance charge thereby resulting would open the gates to the sort of bookmaker who had no permission, because of his conduct, to attend horse races. On some courses tae charge for entrance also includes a race card free.

In the interests of proper order it is necessary that the bookmaker should be of an even superior class to those who attend horse races, for, especially in fashionable race meetings, the type of patron is sometimes of the more educated class, who are also by reason of their enclosures and methods of betting more protected from "welshers" than the humbler artisan who risks his shilling, and one could visualise a possible rough treatment at the hands of a miner or farm labourer if a "welsher" did indeed try to escape. Again, even a bookmaker has a right to consideration as to his stand, and if he is given a favourable site in comparison with the silent and unvocal "tote," why should he not in all fairness make a proper payment?

It has been calculated that the bookmaker's profits are considerably more than the "tote," hence in equity he should help to carry some of the financial responsibility of an entertainment by which, with only one single unit of labour to assist him, he makes his living. The greyhound track owners are earnest in their desire to give the public a perfectly fair opportunity in their sport. I ask any one to compare the detail of form, racing capacity, and quality exhibited by the owners of one of the best, of these tracks for dog racing, with the information provided by the best horse racecourses in this country, France or America, in the cheap popular enclosures, and I challenge any one to prove that in the case of horse racing it is anything like so good or fair as that exhibited by the dog track owners. The dog track owners are keen to procure only the very best and most honourable bookmakers for their courses, and one of the surest ways of accomplishing this is to make the charge for admittance such as only the best type of bookmaker will pay. It prevents the bookmakers without any capital at all coming to the courses to trade. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 12, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Effingham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The noble Earl who moved this Amendment has made a reference to Clause 12, and I think it is proper to say that this Amendment, as I am advised, is really intended in the place of Clause 12, subsection (1). Clause 12 says that the maximum charge which the occupier of a track may make to a bookmaker or to his assistant, shall not exceed in the case of the bookmaker five times the amount, and in the case of the assistant the amount of the highest charge made to members of the public for admission to the same part of the track. Your Lordships will have noticed that the minimum and maximum charges in the Amendment bear no relation to the charges made to the public for admission. The result would be that occupiers would have a direct incentive to charge the maximum charge to a bookmaker, and to lower the charges of admission to the general public. One of the present mischiefs is that some dog tracks are, or used to be, thrown open to the public free of charge, the management deriving their profits from the betting which takes place on the tracks. The Amendment would perpetuate this mischief, and on that ground I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate that it is not acceptable.

There is the further consideration against the Amendment that the bookmaker must be charged not less than 30s. and may be charged as much as £5 for admission to any part of the track. The ordinary minimum charge of admission to dog tracks does not exceed 1s. 6d., and as the Bill stands a bookmaker could not be charged more than 7s. 6d. for admission to the ls. 6d. enclosure. Under the Amendment the bookmaker could be charged for admission to the same enclosure as much as £5. Therefore the effect of this Amendment would be to require the operator to exploit the bookmaker for the sake of private gain, and the Amendment runs counter to one of the underlying principles of the Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection: () It shall not be permitted that credit be allowed for betting on any part of the track or course. The noble Earl said: This is a very reasonable Amendment, and is designed to prevent credit betting on dog tracks, because I feel that the class of person who chiefly goes to dog tracks is the working-man. He goes with very little money in his pocket with which to bet, and if he is unlucky, and there is facility for credit bets, it leads to all sorts of difficulties for him in the future. At the end of the week his wife may not get her housekeeping money, or the man does not pay his rent, or it may be he borrows money from his employers, fully intending to pay it back. He loses again and the result is he is put into prison. There is another side of the matter. Credit betting frequently leads to disputes on the course with regard to bookkeeping, and sometimes to disorder. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I understand from the words of the noble Earl that his Amendment is directed against credit betting on dog racecourses, and not against credit betting on horse racecourses. I would point out to the noble Earl that if, as he suggests, credit betting should be prohibited on licensed greyhound tracks, then his proposal would introduce preferential treatment as between horse racing and other racing, which I do not think can be justified. There is little betting for credit on greyhound tracks, and there is no reason to believe that it will ever develop more than exists to-day. If, as we have heard, particularly during the last stage of the debate on this Bill, certain provisions are class legislation, I consider that the proposal of this Amendment can be stigmatised as the acme of class legislation, and such a proposal, making a differentiation between those who enjoy greyhound racing and those who enjoy horse racing, would deservedly merit such a censure. Therefore, the Amendment is not looked upon with any great sympathy.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection: () It shall be one of the conditions of admittance to the track that a bookmaker shall deposit such sum as may be fixed by the track owner, not being less than £10 nor more than £40 per track, which sum shall be returned to him as and when he shall have discharged all his betting obligations and ceases to attend the race meetings, as well also when the proper authority of the track owner has been obtained for the return of such money.

The noble Earl said: I believe this to be an entirely proper business procedure. If a man is successful in obtaining the right to open a sub-post office in a town or country district he is required to give security. If a man is appointed to a position of trust he must either deposit a sum of money with the firm, upon which he is allowed a proper normal interest, or he must insure with some well-known guarantee. fidelity insurance company It is the deliberate policy of these licensed track owners to give their patrons, the working-class public, as honest and reasonably priced entertainment as care, practical experience, and safeguards can possibly secure. The track owner does not wish to have anywhere on his premises the welsher. If it be suggested that the track owner might somehow not be fair to the bookmaker in respect to the safety of the proposed deposit, let a set of words be now prepared which will put the track owner in the position of a holding trustee of these bookmaker employment deposits, and let some person nominated by the borough treasurer (or bank) in the town where the track is situated be appointed as associated trustee, to be paid for by the bookmaker or out of the interest to be paid upon the money deposited as guarantee of faith of such bookmaker.

The public must be protected. It must now be realised that the artisan public in the open air are patronising dog racing. No wonder the rather significant criticisms of the horse racing authorities are becoming more and more vocal. No wonder Master Boniface tells the story of less takings in his public house. In my view the most respectable bookmakers would be only too glad to show their bona fides in this way. If a bet was disputed, then the task of the management would be much more simple. The money could be deposited in the bank in the joint names of the managing director and the trustee appointed by the borough treasurer, or the deputy appointed by the bookmakers. It should be permissible to deduct from the sums deposited any sum in default by any particular bookmaker and the remainder returned to him when he ceases to operate on that particular track. Should he not at any time default, and he wishes to discontinue betting, after consultation between the aforesaid trustees the money in full (less a small fee) plus interest accruing on its deposit, should be returned to the bookmaker. The Racecourse Betting Control Board Report, 1933, page 41, states that this very method that I ask for obtains in South Australia.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Effingham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

There are two important reasons why this Amendment cannot be accepted. In Vim first place the Bill is not dealing generally with the activities of bookmakers, and it would be quite illogical to require on-the-course bookmakers to make a deposit while off-the-course bookmakers would remain exempt from any such requirement. If the activities of bookmakers as a class were to be made subject to control the better method would be to adopt that recommended by the Royal Commission—namely, that all bookmakers should be registered and that their registration should be liable to forfeiture if they are guilty of fraudulent practices. In other words, any machinery which may be required for controlling the activities of bookmakers should be a system of control by some public authority such as the Police or the Courts.

In the second place, a statutory requirement that bookmakers should make a deposit with the occupier would tend to be regarded as assuring the public of the reliability and honesty of the bookmakers with whom they deal. Betting debts are unenforceable at law and this position, in spite of the proposals of the present Bill, is being maintained, and in the view of the Government Parliament would be ill-advised if it were to adopt any proposal which could be regarded as in any sense guaranteeing the honesty or solvency of bookmakers.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection: () No objection shall be taken by the Secretary of State, or any other person appointed by him or by the local authority in regard to licensing as to the conducting of competitions of skill based upon the events of sport conducted on the track, condiditionally that such competitions shall be upon the sporting events of the day in question and are conducted in an orderly manner.

The noble Earl said: Competitions of skill—and skill is still needed to a large extent accurately to forecast the final placings of any five dogs in a race—are quite a usual feature of greyhound racing, having been a great source of interest to a large number of people, who, while enjoying outdoor amusement, especially during the summer months, do not frequent a dog track primarily to bet. I am pleading for a retention of these competitions, as to take away from the working man something which he already enjoys—and really there is no social menace in a skill competition—savours of extreme pettiness. Since only a few thousand persons attend dog racing at any one time it seems to me that these competitions are much less invidious than the small lotteries, with no element of skill, which are allowed elsewhere in the Bill, at fêtes, church bazaars, etc. I would be prepared to amend this Amendment of mine to confine it solely to persons attending the particular track, as it might be argued that these competitions may extend enormously and become national competitions.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Effingham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I understand from the noble Earl that in framing his Amendment he has in mind the type of competition conducted on some tracks in which prizes are awarded to those who successfully forecast the results of a race or series of races that are being run on that track. This type of competition is a form of betting, and the Amendment would allow an occupier of a track to carry on this type of betting immune from any possibility of proceedings. The principle underlying the Bill is that the occupier is not to be allowed to carry on any form of bookmaking and that he can only carry on the work of a totalisator subject to supervision and strict limitation of profit. The Amendment runs counter to that principle, and on that ground cannot be accepted, but I rather doubt whether the drafting of the noble Earl's Amendment would at present, and in fact, meet the purpose the noble Earl has in mind. In any event it would place the owner of a track in the position of being immune from any possibility of proceedings, which is contrary to the fundamental principle of control of betting on the course.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

I think possibly it might be convenient if we took the adjournment at this point, as I understand that the next Amendment in the name of the Duke of Sutherland is closely linked up with the proposal which follows it to insert a new clause which extends over the next two or three pages of the Order Paper. If your Lordships could see your way to come back at ten minutes past nine that would give us sufficient time for refreshment. We have had a very interesting discussion during the early part of the evening, and I hope your Lordships will see your way to come back later.

[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock and resumed at ten minutes past nine.]

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND had on the Paper a Motion to omit Clause 4 and Amendments proposing several new clauses after Clause 4. The noble Duke said: I have been considering this matter and I think the Government are hardly prepared to accept these Amendments. I have come to the conclusion that perhaps on the whole I had better not move them at the present stage. Possibly the Government may consider the questions on the Report stage in conjunction with other matters in relation to Clause 4 which they have promised to consider. I will ask whether the Government will consider this before the Report stage. At present I think it is hardly worth while moving the Amendments in view of the fact that I do not think His Majesty's Government are prepared to accept them and I do not propose to divide on them.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Notices of, and procedure with respect to, applications for licences.

5.—(1) Every licensing authority shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act and subsequently from time to time, fix the dates on which they will entertain applications from the occupiers of tracks within their licensing area for the grant of licences, and shall cause information as to the dates so fixed to be given to any person who asks for it.

The dates first so fixed shall be such as will enable licences to be granted so as to take effect at the commencement of this Act.

(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 describing the situation of the track, and has also published such a notice in at least two newspapers circulating in the locality in which the track is situate.

(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 be entitled to be heard in person or by a representative, that is to say, the chief officer of police, any responsible authority under 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—

1. (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
2. (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.

In this subsection the expression "local authority" means any of the following councils, that is to say, the council of a county borough, metropolitan borough or county district and the common Council of the City of London; and the expression "district" meanss, in relation to a local authority, the area for which that authority acts.

(4) An application for the grant of a licence in respect of a track which it is proposed to construct may be made by a person who proposes to become the occupier of the track if a licence is granted and, in relation to such an application, any reference in this or the next following section to a track shall be construed as including a reference to the site of the proposed track.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "describing the situation of the track" and insert "containing such particulars as are here inafter mentioned." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the one following it on the Paper go together. The Bill at present provides that an applicant for a licence shall give two months notice in writing both to the licensing authority and to the chief officer of Police. The only statutory requirements as to the contents of the notice of application are that it must state the date on which it is intended to make application and must describe the situation of the track. Chief officers of the Police will have a statutory right under the Bill to make representations to the licensing authority, objecting to the grant of a licence. Licensing authorities will expect to receive from chief officers of Police expressions of their opinion on the question whether the grant of a licence to a particular track would result in undue congestion of traffic or seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order, this being one of the grounds on which a licence may be refused by the licensing authority.

Since the Bill was published, it has been represented to the Secretary of State that chief constables would not be in a position to make any useful observations on these questions unless the notice of application contained more information than a bald statement of the situation of the track. Traffic congestion and the preservation of law and order will depend to a large extent on the accommodation to be provided at the track and the number of entrances and exits. To enable the Police to form an opinion on questions of traffic and law and order, as they would be affected by the grant of a licence, it does not seem unreasonable to require an applicant to give notice to the Police not only of the situation of the track but also of the number and position of exits and the number of spectators for whom accommodation is to be provided. That is briefly the purpose of the two Amendments under Clause 5. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 32, leave out ("describing the situation of the track") and insert ("containing such particulars as are hereinafter mentioned.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, at end insert. ("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.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (3), after "force," to insert "or resolved to be prepared or adopted." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friends Lord Bayford and Lord Malmesbury I should like to move these words. They are as on the Paper "resolved to be prepared or adopted." The House will observe that the clause says "under a planning scheme in force." These words are "or resolved to be prepared or adopted." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 42m after ("force") insert ("or resolved to be prepared or adopted").—(Lord Jessel.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

Subsection (3) of Clause 5 provides that upon the consideration by the licensing authority of an application for the grant of a licence for a track the authority, amongst others, entitled to be heard is any responsible authority under a planning scheme in force in an area which includes the track or any part of the track. The Amendment proposes to include also any responsible authority under a planning scheme resolved to be prepared or adopted. Subsection (1) of Clause 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, lays it down that every planning scheme shall specify the authority or authorities who are to be responsible for enforcing and carrying into effect the provisions of the scheme. Subsection (2) of the same clause provides that the responsible authority for all purposes of the scheme may be the local authority within whose district any land to which the scheme applies or any neighbouring land is situate, or a county council, or a joint body specially constituted by the scheme, and that any two or more such authorities may be responsible authorities for different purposes of the scheme, or as respects different parts of the area to which the scheme applies.

It will be seen therefore that until a planning scheme has been formulated in detail there is no indication as to what authority or authorities will be responsible for its enforcement if and when it comes into operation. A resolution to prepare a scheme or to adopt a scheme proposed by owners of land does not take effect until the resolution has been approved by the Minister of Health. Moreover, a resolution to prepare a scheme does not specify the authority or authorities who will be responsible for enforcing the scheme when it becomes operative. The Amendment therefore is misconceived. I believe that it is very unusual for landowners to submit a scheme for adoption by the planning authority, and therefore the part of the Amendment which relates to a resolution to adopt a planning scheme may be regarded as negligible.

Ordinarily, the authority responsible for enforcing such of the provisions of an operative scheme as control the development of land is the local authority. Subsection (3) of the clause will confer upon the local authority of the district in which is situated a track in respect of which an application for a licence has been made the right to be heard before the licensing authority. This part of the clause should suffice to secure that the views of the local authorities concerned are brought before the licensing authority. Apart from this consideration the object of the Amendment appears to be fully met by subsection (1) of Clause 6 which provides that: where the track, or any part thereof, is situate in an area— (b) with respect to which a resolution to prepare or adopt a planning scheme has taken effect, hut no such scheme is in force, the licensing authority shall either refuse to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the planning authority have consented to the establishment or continuance of the track, or shall grant a licence but suspend its operation until the planning authority have notified their consent in writing to the licensing authority: I hope that that explanation will suffice to show that the Amendment is not considered in its present form to be acceptable to His Majesty's Government.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "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." The noble Lord said: I move the deletion of these words in the interests of a little simplification of this Bill. The number of persons who may complain is very large, and I am sorry both for the licensing authority and for the greyhound racing company when I think of the number of complaints that may be engineered. Surely it is sufficient that the Police and the local authority should be able to lodge complaints instead of allowing both 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 to do so. That makes a very wide constituency, very difficult to define; the word "neighbourhood" is a very ill-defined term. I think the local authority should be able to sift out complaints and they could take action with much more influence than an individual. If there are any complaints of disorder or nuisance the Police are the people who should sift out those complaints. Therefore I think it would be to the advantage of all concerned if the Bill were simplified by leaving out these words.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 2, leave out from ("district") to the end of line 5.—(Lord Askwith.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The effect of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord would be to deprive persons owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of a projected track, and the governing body of any institution in the neighbourhood, of the right which they are given under the Bill to make representations to the licensing authority when a licence is applied for in respect of betting on a track. If the Amendment is carried the only persons who would have the right to make representations would be the chief officer of Police, the town planning authority, the local authority of the district in which the track is situate, or the local authority of an adjoining district. Just as a private individual has the right to make an application for a licence in respect of a track, so any private individual owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of a track who may be seriously adversely affected by the grant of a licence should have the same right to be heard by the licensing authority.

I think the case of a governing body of any institution in the neighbourhood of a track is especially strong. There have been several instances in the past where the proximity of a projected track to a school, to a hospital, or to some other institution has been the subject of well-founded and also vigorous protest on the part of those responsible for the institution. It is but right that the governors of a school or a hospital should be able to go direct to the licensing authority with the nature of their complaint. In the case of county boroughs, the argument in favour of allowing the owners of premises or the governing bodies of institutions in the neighbourhood of the track to make representations is especially formidable. In a county borough there is no special town-planning authority, and there is no local authority for the district in which the track is situate.

If the noble Lord's Amendment were to be accepted its effect would be that in a county borough the chief officer of Police would be the only person with the right to make representations on the hearing of an application for a licence. The chief constable would not be in a position to make authoritative representations on the question of local amenities or the health of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood or their comfort, and it is but right that the licensing authority should hear any complaint in this matter from the individuals who are being adversely affected by the erection of the track. It should be remembered that as county boroughs are large centres of population, a very considerable number of tracks are situated within county boroughs, and therefore we must take special notice of the effect which this Amendment would have on the consideration of county borough cases. I feel that on all these grounds it is quite impossible for us to accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord.

LORD ASKWITH

I do not press the Amendment. I can only say that I am sorry for the licensing authority.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD JESSEL had an Amendment on the Paper, in subsection (3), after "institution," to insert "or an association of ratepayers or similar body." The noble Lord said: I am afraid that I find myself rather in agreement with the noble Lord who moved the previous Amendment, because I rather want to extend the number of persons than to restrict it. My Amendment has the object of widening the bodies who can make complaints, instead of leaving it altogether to an individual. I believe in collective action, of which I know that noble Lords on the Labour Benches are very much in favour. I think that is preferable to giving the power to a single individual, who may be a, cantakerous person who really may not have any views except that betting is wrong or that these tracks are obnoxious. A more responsible body would carry more weight in their arguments. For that reason I propose this Amendment widening the scope of those who may object. I beg to move.

LORD ASKWITH

May I ask my noble friend what "similar body" means?

LORD JESSEL

A similar body is a like body—some other association. The noble Lord is quite right; after that criticism, which is quite a correct one, if I may be allowed I will alter the Amendment and leave out the words "or similar body."

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Then the noble Lord moves in that form: after "institution" insert "or an association of ratepayers"?

LORD JESSEL

Yes.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, after ("institution") insert ("or an association of ratepayers").—(Lord Jessel.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

It is clearly undesirable, I think, that the Bill should give a large number of authorities a right to make representations to the licensing authority, since the greyhound-racing interests would be in a position to represent that the Government were using undue influence against them by increasing the difficulties in the way of obtaining a licence. Those individuals and authorities which are to have a statutory right to make representations should accordingly be confined to those who may be seriously affected by the grant of a licence. I find some difficulty in seeing what adequate ground can be put forward in support of the proposal that an association of ratepayers should have a right to be heard by the licensing authority. I feel that it is enough that any individual owning or occupying premises in the neighbourhood of a track should have the right to make representations, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD ASKWITH

I venture entirely to agree with the noble Marquess in this matter, and was glad he could argue on both sides of the question.

LORD JESSEL

As the noble Lord has dealt equal-handed justice to both sides, I will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD JESSEL moved to omit proviso (b) in subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really one which affects London, because you might have a member of a borough council sitting on the county council, and therefore under the proviso the local authority could not be heard. It might happen, and it has very often happened, that a member of a borough council has also been a member of the London County Council, and that would exclude the local authority, the borough council, from being heard at all, and their views are of course extremely important. That is the reason I have put down the Amendment. On the other hand, as the whole question is now in the balance the Government might desire to have this Amendment postponed.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 11, leave out from ("refused") to end of paragraph (b).—(Lord Jessel.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The Government are proposing to recast this provision in a manner which will leave no ambiguity as to its limited scape, and in the view of the Government the Amendment now proposed might properly be withdrawn at present, because the Government Amendment will provide for the matter as to which the noble Lord is apprehensive—namely, that a local authority should be heard by the licensing authority irrespective of whether an individual is serving on both councils—except in cases where the licensing authority, being the local authority, has delegated its powers to a joint committee. That is the only instance where such an authority would not have representation to the licensing authority. In view of the Government's Amendment, and this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD JESSEL

I thank the Government for their consideration, and in the circumstances I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

In view of the decision reached this afternoon as to reviewing the question of what authority is to be the licensing authority, the Government do not at present move the next Amendment—in proviso (b) in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "licensing" authority" and insert "is a committee of that local authority, or a joint committee which includes persons appointed by that local authority."

LORD RAGLAN

As the clause is now to be withdrawn perhaps the Government will make up their minds whether "authority" is a singular or a plural noun.

LORD SNELL moved, in subsection (3), in the definition of "local authority," before "county borough," to insert "an administrative county or of." The noble Lord said: The Amendment is related to the matter which has just been explained by the noble Earl. The point is that under Clause 5 certain local authorities are entitled to be heard when an application for a licence is being considered, but a county council is not included in such local authorities; and, secondly, even if a county council is to be the licensing authority under the Bill, it is most desirable that a county council should be entitled to be heard where the track to which the application relates is situated on or just outside the boundary of the county. The point is met in Clause 5 as regards a county borough, and there appears to be no reason for differentiating a county council from a county borough council in this respect. Moreover, the Amendment would seem to be in accord with the views of the Royal Commission.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, after ("of") insert ("an administrative county or of").—(Lord Snell.)

LORD BAYFORD

This Amendment is practically the same as the one in my name which follows. I am very proud to find myself for once in agreement with the noble Lord. I support every word he said in urging his Amendment upon the Government.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

As the Bill stands a county borough would have a statutory right to make representations to a county council which was considering an application for the grant of a licence in respect of a track in its area; but a county council could not make representations to a county borough council in similar circumstances. The reason for this is that the councils of county districts (that is to say, urban and rural district councils) are given a right of representation to the county borough council. It did not seem right to the Government that, where a county borough council is considering an application, both the county council and the county districts should, in respect of the interests of the same area, have separate and independent rights to make representations to the county borough councils. His Majesty's Government, however, appreciate the reasons why the noble Lord has moved the Amendment, especially in view of the traffic congestion that may occur, and would therefore entail some cause for representation to be made to the council, and on these grounds the Government accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Discretion of licensing authority as to grant of licences.

6.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence in respect of any track—

1. (a) if they are satisfied that, in the event of the licence being granted, the existence or user of the track—
1. (i) would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood of the track, or be detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction, or residing, in any school or institution in that neighbourhood; or
2. (ii) would seriously impair the amenities of that neighbourhood; or
3. (iii) would result in undue congestion of traffic, or seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order; or
602
2. (b) if the applicant has been convicted of any offence (whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act) in connection with the management of any track,

and, where the track, or any part thereof, is situate in an area—

1. (a) in which there is in force a planning scheme under which the consent of the planning authority to the establishment or continuance of the track is necessary; or
2. (b) with respect to which a resolution to prepare or adopt a planning scheme has taken effect, but no such scheme is in force,

the licensing authority shall either refuse to grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the planning authority have consented to the establishment or continuance of the track, or shall grant a licence but suspend its operation until the planning authority have notified their consent in writing to the licensing authority:

Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply in relation to any application for the first licence in respect of an existing track, as defined in the next fallowing section of this Act, if the applicant has elected to make his application under that section and the conditions imposed by that section in connection with applications made thereunder have been complied with.

(2) Save as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection or, as the case may be, in the next following section of this Act, the licensing authority shall not refuse any application for the grant of a licence.

(3) Where the licensing authority refuse an application for the grant of a licence, they shall send to the applicant by post a written statement of the grounds of their refusal,

LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out sub-paragraph(i) of paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: I have some Amendments down to Clause 6 with regard to the opportunities of refusing to grant a licence. I have no particular objections to these matters being considered and, if thought right and proper, of their being reasons for refusing a licence from the very first; but according to this Bill there may be for five years an opportunity for the restrictions of this Bill to continue. Many of these courses have already been founded for several years, and yet at the end of that period they are to be suddenly, apparently, as far as I can read this Bill, obliged to apply for a new licence and to be subject to all the restrictions of Clause 6. People may come and bring complaints when they come to live there after a course has been in existence for several years and even during the moratorium of five years. Persons residing in any school or institution in that neighbourhood can also come forward and destroy an institution that may be giving employment to scores of people, that may have large funds invested in it, and that is supported by the neighbourhood as a whole. On that complaint they have to risk the question of whether they can get a licence or not. I do not deal, for the moment, with paragraph (b), which is really quite contrary to anything that appears in any Act of Parliament I have ever seen in this country, but I move the suggestion with regard to renewed licences, so that the same conditions should not apply as in the case of the original licences.

Amendment moved— Page 5, leave out lines 36 to41.—(Lord Askwith.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Under the Bill the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence in respect of any track if they are satisfied that the grant of a licence would, first of all, injuriously affect the health or comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood or would be detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction in any school or institution in that neighbourhood; or, secondly, would seriously impair the amenities of the neighbourhood or would result in undue congestion of traffic or would seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order.

LORD ASKWITH

I beg the pardon of the noble Marquess. I am not at the moment moving my next Amendment to omit lines 1 to 3 on page 6.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The effect of the noble Lord's statement would be to do away with the first few of the considerations I have mentioned. But the Government cannot agree to the proposal that the licensing provision should be no more than a measure of defence for residential neighbourhoods. From the social point of view one of the worst places where a track for betting could be set up is in the heart of a slum, and a slum normally has no amenities which can be impaired. If life for a large number of persons living in the immediate neighbourhood of a track is to be made intolerable by the noise and uproar associated with the provision of betting facilities, then it is but right that this consideration should be given as much weight as the consideration whether the erection of a track in the outskirts of a town is likely to impair the amenities of the district. Similarly, local authorities should have the power to take into consideration questions of traffic congestion and also of law and order.

LORD ASKWITH

I think the noble Marquess has misunderstood me. I moved first of all that lines 36 to 41 should be omitted. I left in that portion relating to the renewal of a licence which "would seriously impair the amenities of that neighbourhood." I did not touch upon sub-paragraph (iii) which deals with "undue congestion of traffic, or seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order" because really that is a matter for the Police; it is not a matter for the refusal to renew a licence. If the Police have not been able to avoid congestion, they have not been doing their duty. With regard to dirt track racing, football matches, and all kinds of things, congestion arises at the gates of those entertainments. Why should greyhound racing be specially selected, limited as it is to two days a week, for saying that congestion arises and, therefore, licences after five, or perhaps twelve years, are to be refused?

Surely, before the twelve years are up a neighbourhood could find out whether its amenities are impaired, and could make its proper plea in law by applying to restrain a nuisance. Surely, too, the Police could be called on by the local authority to do their duty in preventing the congestion. The later Amendment I am coming to deals with this situation. Because an offence has been committed by, possibly, a secretary not having fulfilled the Board of Trade rules, or by a driver of a motor car not having his licence, or by some dog not having been properly registered, the owners of the track are to be subjected in connection with the track to conviction and the licence is to be refused. I must say I think it is one of the most extraordinary extensions of the law for people who have been conducting a legitimate business for a, considerable time to have this innovation brought in in this extraordinary way. It is proposed to stop their business and will have the effects which I have indicated. It is to apply to greyhound racing only and not to other sports in this country.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I do not understand what the noble Lord requires. In Clause 6 he is asking for the deletion of certain lines which I desire to inform him we feel necessary for the conduct of the Bill we are introducing into this House. I think he wishes to omit lines 36 to 41. Am I right in that? The licensing authority are to be satisfied that: it would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood of the track, or be detrimental to the interests of persons receiving instruction, or residing in any school or institution in that neighbourhood. If the noble Lord does not want those words inserted, I do not quite understand what he means. Those are most important considerations which the State has to take into consideration, and the licensing authority who are the representatives of the State are called upon to take into consideration those matters. The other Amendment, I understand, the noble Lord is not moving, am I right?

LORD ASKWITH

I moved to omit lines 36 to 41. That is number one. I move on the next page to leave out lines 1 to 3.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

If I may interrupt I understand the question before the House is to leave out lines 36 to 41 on page 5.

LORD ASKWITH

I am not suggesting it should not apply to new licences, but I am suggesting that it is most unfair that it should apply to the renewal of old licences after the moratorium at the end of five years. A person at the end of five years in coming forward for a new licence should not have these things applied to him. If it does not apply to an application for a renewal of a licence it ought to be more clearly expressed in the Bill. As I read the Bill, the present course at White City or any other course you like in the country that has already been going for six or seven years, has another five years possible life, and at the end of that time has to apply to the local authority and may be thrown out upon these new considerations.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

It seems to me the argument of my noble friend tells the other way. Many of us think that five years is too long. If the thing has been a nuisance for all these years, what is the remedy for people who find it a nuisance?

LORD ASKWITH

They have their remedy at law.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

What is the remedy?

LORD ASKWITH

It is a nuisance.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

"A nuisance" is a technical phrase; but it is not a nuisance which comes under that particular clause. Supposing a track is a nuisance to the persons residing near it, up to now they have had it and they have had to make the best or the worst of it; but when the time comes they have a perfect right to apply for justice under this rule, and I hope the Government will stick to that.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I do not quite see why greyhound racing should be treated as an exceptional case. If I build a factory in a residential area, nothing on earth can turn me out unless I commit a nuisance. Why should a greyhound track which is in existence now be treated in a different way?

LORD STRABOLGI

Does not this apply to all kinds of tracks? Is the noble Lord right in saying that it applies only to greyhound tracks? Surely it applies to dirt tracks and other tracks of that kind. If not, I suggest it ought to be made to apply. I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lord says. Why confine it to greyhound racing? You can have just as much nuisance from a dirt track. If it creates a nuisance or attracts a crowd why not apply this clause to it? Does it apply?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

But the provision does apply to all kinds of tracks, if betting facilities are provided.

LORD STRABOLGI

I think there is a great deal in what the noble Lords opposite said. Why pick out greyhound racing? Why not preserve the health of school children and the amenities and the other objects of this clause in reference to other tracks? I do think the noble Marquess might consider it for the Report stage.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I think the Amendment which the noble Lord has directed at this Clause 6 (perhaps the noble Lord does not appreciate it) applies both to existing tracks (and therefore to the tracks which have the moratorium of five years) and to the new tracks.

LORD ASKWITH

I said I did not object to it applying to new tracks.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

If that Amendment is carried it will apply to new tracks and therefore it should be in some other place. In regard to the question which the noble Lord opposite asked, the conditions under which a licensing authority can refuse a licence under the subsections of Clause 6 apply to all tracks, including motor car tracks.

LORD STRABOLGI

Thank you.

LORD ASKWITH

All I can say is that the Act becomes more obscure than ever

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: The words which I propose to leave out allude to the Police, and the question is whether a provision should be contained in the Bill that on the renewal of a licence the Police, at the end of all this period, should be able to bring forward a complaint that the track would to me. If this is to mean that it is to apply to existing tracks as well as to non-existing tracks, I say it is unjust. If it applies to non-existing tracks I have no objection to these matters being taken into consideration upon an application for a new track. I do not suppose there will be many applications for new tracks. But I do say that there ought to be more fair terms for the existing tracks. If the noble Earl who has last spoken, Lord Feversham, is prepared to make a differentiation, or to consider a differentiation of this sort, I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS.
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Hailsham, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Zetland, M.	Halifax, V.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
		Hampton, L.
Feversham, E.	London, L. Bp.	Harlech, L.
Fortescue, E.		Heneage, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Addington, L.	Luke, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Alvingham, L.	Polwarth, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Amulree, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)	Arnold, L.	Rochester, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Bayford, L.	Sanderson, L.
Stanhope, E.	Clwyd, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Cornwallis, L.	Stanmore, L.
	Cottesloe, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Astor, V.	Denman, L.	Templemore, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Digby, L.	Trent, L.
Goschen, V.	Fairhaven, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Sutherland, D.	Hereford, V. [Teller.]	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
		Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)
Airlie, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)	Hindlip, L.
Effingham, E.	Askwith, L. [Teller.]	Jessel, L.
Radnor, E.	Carrington, L.	Lawrence, L.
Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)	Darcy (de Knayth), L.	Raglan, L.
	Ellenborough, L.	Redesdale, L.
Bertie of Thame, V.

cause undue congestion of traffic "or seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order." I consider that a very unreasonable suggestion. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, leave out lines 1 to 3.—(Lord Askwith.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I am afraid I have no more to add on this Amendment to what I said on the one that preceded it. We consider that these provisions should be included in the Bill, and I feel that the noble Lord will agree that this is a consideration which should be taken notice of by the local licensing authority. Whether it will operate in the adverse manner in which the noble Lord seems to think it will, I have every reason to doubt, but I certainly think that it should be within the power of a licensing authority to exercise their discretion in this direction.

LORD ASKWITH

Probably a Division would only result in the same way as the last, so I do not propose to press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in the first paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "applicant," to insert "or where the applicant is a corporate body, any director or the manager thereof." The noble Earl said: Under Clause 6 one of the grounds on which a licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence for betting is that an applicant "has been convicted of any offence … in connection with the management of any track." That does not provide for the case in which the applicant is a limited company, and the object of the Amendment is to deal with this casus omissus. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 4, after ("applicant") insert ("or where the applicant is a corporate body, any director or the manager thereof").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ASKWITH moved, in the first paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out" (whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act)" and insert "under this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on the same point, and this point also occurs, and can only occur, upon the renewal of a licence. The effect of the clause would be that: if the applicant has been convicted of any offence (whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act) in connection with the management of any track the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence. I propose that the words "whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act" should be left out and that the words "under this Part of this Act" should be inserted. Surely the Act produces enough new offences without making a track liable to have its licence taken away because of some of the offences I have already enumerated of a most venial character, such as the secretary making a mistake or a car driver not having got his licence. The words are enormously wide, and would include many of the smaller things which would be an offence at Common Law or possibly under some other Act of Parliament. If the criminal offences were confined to offences under this Bill, persons would know where they were.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 5, leave out ("(whether at Common Law or under this or any other Act)") and insert ("under this Part of this Act").—(Lord Askwith.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The object of the Government's proposals is to ensure that a licensing authority has power to refuse a licence to a person of proved bad character. Many of the graver offences, such as embezzlement, which might be committed in connection with the management of a track, would involve a breach of Statutes other than the present Bill, and to restrict this provision to offences under the Bill would be to restrict it in an undesirable, fashion. The noble Lord who has moved the Amendment has argued that the provision in the Bill gives the licensing authority power to refuse a licence to an applicant because of some quite trivial offence, but the power to refuse a licence is discretionary, and the Government are satisfied that the licensing authority will exercise its powers in a reasonable and proper manner.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I do not know that I can quite agree with the noble Earl who has spoken for the Government. I am not quite clear on the point myself, but surely the case he has mentioned of embezzlement is a case between, not the local authority and the track concerned, but the owners of the track and the official concerned, and probably the man would have been dealt with accordingly, if he has embezzled, and not be in a position to be an applicant for a licence. I quite agree with Lord Askwith that as it is drawn the provision is extremely wide, and that although it might draw within its net the embezzler, it will also draw within its net the petty and unimportant offences as well.

LORD ASKWITH

If I may speak again, I think the instance which the noble Earl has given, of embezzlement, is about as bad a one as he could give. The unfortunate shareholders are not only to suffer the loss of their money through embezzlement, but are also to be deprived of their licence because their secretary has embezzled. I will not press the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD BAYFORD moved, in the first paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "track," to insert "or of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty." The noble Lord said: The effect of my Amendment is to correct what I really think must be an oversight in the Bill. As the clause stands the local authority is not allowed but compelled to grant a licence to a man who has been caught out in dishonesty in every other walk of life in which he has engaged. The local authority is told not that he may but that he must be given a licence to conduct a dog track. That does not seem either very good law or very good sense.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 7, after ("track") insert ("or of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty").—(Lord Bayford.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

His Majesty's Government are pleased to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (1), after the second paragraph (b), to insert: or (c) if the sanitary arrangements for the use of the public or the entrances and exits of the track are unsatisfactory or inadequate. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down at the instance of the Scottish County Councils Association, requests for such a provision having been received from a considerale number of councils. Its object is to add another reason for which a licence may be refused. Objection may be taken that such conditions are not required in licences, but I think it will be generally admitted—and there are many precedents for it—that where a licence is granted by a local authority or by any public body it is quite common that conditions should be laid down affecting public health and public safety. No one can get a licence for a public house or hotel without showing to the satisfaction of the licensing body that proper provision has been made for the necessities of the public, and no hall can get a licence for a cinema unless there is proper provision made for the safety of the public going in and coming out. It seems to me that this is a very reasonable suggestion, otherwise a local authority will have to wait until a nuisance is committed and then take steps to have it abated. There are instances now. I have in mind a case of a very large camp where great crowds congregate, and the local authority responsible for the public health of the district has the greatest difficulty in getting the owner of that place to do what is necessary. It is really only by bluffing him and threatening him that it can be done

A NOBLE LORD

Is it the War Office?

LORD POLWARTH

No, not the War Office. I do not think that if such a paragraph were inserted in the clause there would be any hardship, and I hope that the Government will insert it or give effect to it in some form or other in order to ensure that the local authority, or the licensing body whoever they may be, may be able to do their duty properly.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 7, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Polwarth.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I am sure that your Lordships must sympathise with the desire of the noble Lord to secure that the sanitary arrangements and the exits and entrances of tracks should be satisfactory. As regards sanitary arrangements, if the licensing authorities were to be satisfied before granting a licence that they were satisfactory, this would involve elaborate machinery for submitting complete plans of the proposed track to the licensing authority. This proposal would throw an enormous additional responsibility on licensing authorities. This responsibility is quite divorced from the particular issue of the provision of betting facilities, and is really part of the wide general question of the provisions which should be taken to secure the comfort and safety of persons attending the tracks or grounds at which large numbers of persons collect for the purpose of witnessing sporting events. If this matter were to be the subject of legislation, it should be of a general character And it would not be appropriate to deal with the matter in connection with the present Bill, especially in view of the large additional responsibilities which it would impose on licensing authorities.

As regards exits and entrances, the Amendment which the Government propose at page 4, line 35, will require an applicant to inform the licensing authority of the number and position of the exits provided or intended to be provided, while another Amendment proposed by the Government at Clause 15, page 13, line 9, will empower the licensing authority to revoke a licence if without their approval the exits from the track described in the notice given to the licensing authority had been materially altered, and if the licensing authority are satisfied that undue congestion of traffic, or socious prejudice to the preservation of law and order has resulted therefrom. In the view of the Government, these two proposals go as far as is reasonably necessary to ensure that sufficient exits are provided for the purpose of preserving law and order, and avoiding undue traffic congestion.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: Provided further that where an application is made for the renewal of a licence granted in pursuance of this or the next following section of this Act such application shall be granted by the licensing authority unless they are satisfied that the track has been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance.

The noble Duke said: This Amendment is somewhat similar to the one moved by Lord Askwith, but not entirely similar. Clause 7 provides that existing racecourses shall receive licences as a matter of course on complying with certain procedure for five years, but at the end of five years managements will be required to satisfy conditions laid down under Clause 6. Tracks opening after the passing of the Bill will have to satisfy the conditions of Clause 6 at the commencement; and in both cases, at the expiration of the seven-year licence provided for in Clause 6, the council will again have to apply the same tests before granting a renewal of licence. It is submitted that, once a licence has been granted to a particular track and the conditions enumerated in Clause 6 have all been taken into account, then a renewal of licence ought not to be refused, and the same grounds of refusal ought not to be required to be examined again. A licence constitutes a recognition of the right to exist, and once it has been granted its renewal ought not to be denied unless there has been bad conduct.

The intent of the Amendment now suggested is that, where a licence has been once granted, a renewal at the expiration of five or seven years can only be refused in cases where the track has been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance. The provisions of Clause 15 already provide sufficient safeguards for the good behaviour of the track from the local government point of view. The case for this Amendment is particularly strong so far as relates to existing tracks. At the end of the five-year moratorium allowed for in Clause 7, many of these tracks will have been in existence for over ten years. It is not reasonable that after such a length of time a council should be empowered to close down a racecourse merely by reason of its proximity to a school or merely because some body of residents contends that it interferes with their personal comfort.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 30, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

This Amendment is put forward as an alternative Amendment to the one which the noble Duke has down to omit Clause 6, which clause specifies the grounds on which the county councils and the county borough councils can refuse to grant a licence in respect of any track. If we assume that Clause 6 in some form shall stand part of the Bill the effect of the present Amendment is that a licence once granted, whether in respect of an existing track or a new track, would ever thereafter be automatically renewed by the licensing authority unless they are satisfied that the track has been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance.

The Bill proposes first of all in the case of new tracks, and by that I mean tracks on which bookmaking was not carried on during 1933 in connection with sporting events, that the occupier shall be required to obtain a licence from the licensing authority, but that that licence can only be refused on certain grounds which are specified in Clause 6. The licence will last for a period of seven years, at the end of which period a fresh licence must be obtained which can be refused on the same, but on no other grounds. Secondly, in the case of existing tracks, that in view of the expenditure involved in the erection of a track, such tracks should receive a special licence almost automatically. This special licence would last for five years, at the end of which time it would be incumbent on the occupier to obtain an ordinary seven-year licence. It will be observed that in the case of existing tracks the effect of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Duke would be to prolong indefinitely the moratorium (which the Government propose should last only five years) from the requirement to obtain an ordinary licence. I think noble Lords will see that it would be quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. In the case of both existing and new tracks, licences would for all practical purposes be perpetual licences. Their renewal would be purely formal and could only be refused if the track had been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance. These are grounds on which a licence ought properly to be revocable during its currency and the Bill so provides in Clause 15. But if these were the only grounds on which the renewal of a licence could be refused, then the power of the local authority to refuse to allow betting facilities on any track would be most unduly curtailed.

The object of allowing licences to last for as long a period as seven years is, as I think your Lordships are aware, to prevent the occupiers from suffering hardship and to give them some certainty as to their tenure. The object of requiring a fresh application for a licence at the end of seven years is to give the local authority an opportunity of considering the circumstances afresh in the light of local conditions which may then exist and of deciding whether the conditions have so changed that the continued provision of betting facilities would seriously impair local amenities or would injuriously affect schools or institutions or new centres of population which had sprung up since the original grant of the licence. I think your Lordships will agree that that certainly is the spirit which is embodied in the Bill. We desire that the local authority should have the power of reviewing the grant of these licences and of granting them in accordance with the best interests of the public concerned. I feel therefore that it is impossible to accept the Amendment of the noble Duke.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

It seems that the Bill as at present drawn means that the legislation becomes in the nature of restrictive legislation and potential confiscation. A certain number of people, whether rightly or wrongly, have invested money in existing greyhound racing tracks. Under the Bill as it is at present they have a potential life of five years. At the end of that time, on the very many grounds in this Bill, they may lose all their money. It seems to me, that as far as existing tracks are concerned, it is only fair to give them security of tenure. It is an existing situation of which people have complete knowledge and there seems to be no reason why they should not be allowed to continue as they are going, provided that they do not, in the words of the noble Duke's Amendment, conduct their business in a disorderly manner or so as to become a nuisance.

So far as projected tracks are concerned, surely the provisions for inquiry in the Bill are sufficiently adequate to ensure, before the track ever starts, that it should not be harmful to the amenities of the district and the various other considerations mentioned in the Bill. Again, why should the individual who chooses to put his money into a greyhound racing track have a security of tenure of seven years only? I must confess that it seems extremely hard that greyhound racing should be picked out for this particular form of restriction. Why, when there is a track in existence, should it not be allowed to continue in existence, when a projected track is agreed to under the very many restrictions contained in this Bill? Why should it not, once agreed to, be allowed to continue in existence?

LORD RAGLAN

I venture to think that the noble Earl is mistaken in thinking that this provision refers only to greyhound tracks. By the definition on page 16 it includes a racecourse. It is very difficult to understand this Bill, but if I read this clause aright, the Bill, as drafted, would put it in the power of the Berkshire County Council to close the Ascot racecourse on the complaint of a local schoolmaster that the attention of his pupils had been distracted.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

I do not wish to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection: (2) The licensing authority shall refuse to grant a licence under this or the next following section of this Act unless they are satisfied that racing at the track will be conducted under the rules for the time being in force of the National Greyhound Racing Club.

The noble Duke said: This is rather an important Amendment which I think the Government could quite easily accept. To-day undoubtedly a great number of your Lordships have more or less conveyed that you do not like dog racing, but at the same time you may entrench it for ever in this country. That being the case, surely it should be run under the best possible conditions. As it is, nothing has been done in any way to make regulations to see that it is properly conducted.

There is a body which exists now which does its work very effectively, in the shape of the Greyhound Racing Club. It was formed in 1927 to regulate and control the racing side of the sport. It is composed of private individuals of standing, with no financial interest in greyhound racing or management, and they act in an entirely honorary capacity. The membership of the Club is limited to fifty and the Club is governed by a committee of honorary stewards elected from amongst their members. I do not think that, before your Lordships, I need go on any further at this time of night, but it is obvious that something of this sort is required to control racing, otherwise you will have different rules or no rules all over the place. It is certainly not the business of any county council or analogous body to make rules for betting and rules for identifying dogs and so forth. That must be done by a body which works centrally and which is universally respected. There are a number of clubs at the present moment which have no rules of any sort and there is no other organisation existing which has the requisite knowledge. I am not speaking simply on behalf of the National Greyhound Racing Club, but I think that it is essential to have some organisation to ensure that there is clean racing because if there is not clean racing you cannot have clean betting. Without some such provision as this you would be simply entrenching the very worst elements of dog racing in this country. It is possible that the Government may have a better idea, but if not I think this Amendment should be accepted.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 30, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Doke of Atholl.)

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. I can assure the noble Duke that there are several dog racing societies issuing licences for tracks which are run under rules which are accepted.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Will the noble Earl provide us with those rules?

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I have not got them with me, but I will send them to the noble Duke with pleasure. After all, the National Greyhound Racing Club only controls fifty-eight tracks and there are 225 other tracks which are run under the rules of an association called the British Greyhound Tracks Control Society. They are run perfectly well, and really it seems to me that to give a Club, which after all is a money making concern, complete monopoly of control over dog racing would not be at all fair.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

I agree with the noble Duke who moved this Amendment that there should be some strong centralised control. I dealt with that when I addressed your Lordships in the Second Reading debate and I do not propose to repeat what I said on that occasion. But it is clear from what was said by the noble Earl who has just spoken that this proposal does not meet with unqualified approval from all those engaged in the sport of dog racing. I feel that in those circumstances it might be rather high-handed if your Lordships forced such a thing on the sport. I hope, however, that before this Bill leaves our hands we may be assured that some form of control, which I believe to be very necessary, has been established.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

This Amendment proposes that the licensing authority for betting on these tracks shall be the National Greyhound Racing Club. I think your Lordships should know in the first place that the proposer of the Amendment seems to have overlooked the existence of sports other than greyhound racing. The management of a motor racing track might wish to secure a licence for the provision of betting facilities in connection with motor racing. They could hardly be expected to conduct their meeting "under the rules for the time being in force of the National Greyhound Racing Club." Even in respect of greyhound racing the Government cannot undertake to grant a monopoly to tracks affiliated to the National Greyhound Racing Club, for reasons which I will state.

In the first place the Government is allowing bookmaking and legalising the totalisator on tracks as betting facilities to be available to the public which attends greyhound racing. It cannot agree that the alternative facility of the totalisator should be confined to certain tracks which follow a certain code of rules. There is an interesting parallel in this respect which may be drawn from horse racing. In the proposals which were first put forward in 1927 by the Jockey Club and the National Hunt Committee for the legalisation of the totalisator on horse racecourses, it was proposed that the totalisator should only be allowed on racecourses where racing took place under the rules of the Jockey Club or of the National Hunt Committee. Parliament, however, on the advice of the Government, decided that betting facilities provided by the totalisator could not be confined to people who frequented racecourses where racing took place under the rules of the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee, but must be available to people using any approved courses where racing with horses took place. The Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, was accordingly drafted so as to observe this general principle. It contains no requirement about the rules of racing to be observed where the totalisator is operated, and the totalisator is in fact operated on courses which are under the rules of the Pony Turf Club and not of the Jockey Club or National Hunt Committee. The National Greyhound Racing Club has nothing like the position held in horse racing by the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee, and consequently there is no ease for granting to the Greyhound Racing Club what was for good reasons denied to the Jockey Club and National Hunt Committee in 1928.

The National Greyhound Racing Club is closely associated with the body representing track managements known as the National Greyhound Racing Society. It was established in evidence before the Royal Commission that by agreement between the two bodies, no applicant for a licence to race under the rules of the Club is considered by the Club unless the applicant (and the applicant is usually a company) has been accepted as a member of the Society. The Society, as representing a number of track managements, is in the nature of a trade combine. If, therefore (to take an example) there are two tracks in a town affiliated to the National Greyhound Racing Society, and the promoters of a third track wish to become licensed by the Club, they must first (under the rules of the Club) be accepted as members of the National Greyhound Racing Society which represents the trade interests of the two existing tracks. Rightly or wrongly there is the suspicion that to become licensed by the Club, one must not merely be prepared to observe certain standards of racing but must not be infringing the monopoly in any area of existing members of the Club and Society. The Government could not in any circumstances be party to a proposal which appeared to confer privileges on a group of financial interests to the detriment of other interests, whose sole disqualification was that they were not within the ring.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

May I interrupt for one moment? In fact, the National Greyhound Racing Club has no financial interest at all in greyhound racing.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I do not know that that alters the argument which I ventured to put before your Lordships. The effect of the Amendment would be to require the licensing authority to refuse a licence to all existing tracks which were not affiliated to the National Greyhound Racing Society. The result would be that the only existing tracks which would get a licence automatically would be the fifty-eight tracks which are so affiliated. The scheme of the Bill is to afford a moratorium of five years for all existing tracks, which number approximately 228 at present. Can it be seriously contemplated that the 170 odd tracks should on the passing of the Bill be automatically shut down unless and until they became affiliated to the Society? At present the tracks which Are affiliated to the National Greyhound Racing Society are subject to a self imposed limitation of six race meetings per week and no Sunday meetings, whereas the other tracks race as often as they wish. Under the Bill the unregulated tracks will lose this advantage. All tracks will have the same maximum number of racing days—namely, 104 per annum, and no track will be able to race on Sundays. In connection with this number of 104 days per annum I had occasion on another Amendment, when challenged by a noble Lord behind me, to say that the Wembley track was in favour of only utilising 104 days per annum. I regret to inform your Lordships, and I humbly apologise, that my knowledge of these places is so limited that I used the wrong name. I was not referring to Wembley but to other tracks—I think the White City is one—which are quite satisfied with the provision in this Bill.

LORD ASKWITH

The noble Marquess mentioned Wembley to me. I had not the information then, but I am glad he says that it does not apply to Wembley. I have never heard from any representatives of any of the big London tracks that two days a week would be sufficient for them.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

General Critchley of the White City informed me that they could not possibly run on 104 days a year.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I am credibly informed that the White City require 104 days, and no more. The noble Duke quoted General Critchley. In his evidence before the Betting Commission General Critchley says this: There are two tracks lying side by side in London, one averaging 12,000 attendance and the other 1,000. There is no reason why the public should not go equally to the one as to the other. It is simply that the public will not go to the unlicensed tracks for the reasons explained by Mr. Garland-Wells. That is, the lower standards. If the Society with the higher standards it claims to represent has prospered when greyhound racing was quite unregulated, there is no reason why it should not prosper equally under a system of regulation. Experience has shown that it pays to offer a high standard of racing to the public because attendances are thereby increased, and that is sound commercial policy whether the number of days per annum be 365 or 104.

LORD ASKWITH

I do not think that that statement of General Critchley is evidence that the White City are content with two days a week, and I am certain that Mr. Garland-Wells never said, in the course of his evidence, that they would be content with that.

LORD STRABOLGI

I also referred to Wembley, and I quite understand how the mistake occurred. May I ask the noble Marquess to confirm this? Is it the object of the Bill to raise the standard of greyhound management, to attract a better class of people, and to put the whole thing on a more solid and prosperous and dignified basis? I have been searching for the objects of this Bill, and the search becomes more interesting.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The intervention of the noble Lord is very interesting indeed, but I do not quite know what point he is trying to arrive at. I have tried to show that the Government have no interest whatever in dog racing, but that they feel it is their duty to restrict the facilities given for betting. They believe that betting being what it is and vested interests being what they are all interests are properly served by allowing 104 days betting in connection with dog racing. As to the other points which the noble Lord raised, the Government have nothing to do with them.

LORD STRABOLGI

They are very interesting points, and touch on the very core of the Bill. The noble Marquess says that the Government have no interest in greyhound racing, but want to discourage betting. Yet I understood him to add that they wanted dog racing to be well conducted and for this sport to be put on a sound commercial basis. Surely that would encourage people to bet who do not like going to disreputable establishments.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

May I point out that I did not say that the Greyhound Racing Club was necessarily to be the body, but I said one like it—a central body that could control the whole lot. As it is because there are only a few well-conducted tracks the noble Marquess says he is not interested in them, but he is interested, as far as I can make out, in the very many other ones that are run badly. My point is that something should be done to see that the whole lot are run well, or that they shall not exist.

LORD BAYFORD

I was not quite clear, but I understood the noble Marquess to say that some responsible authority on dog racing has said that on one of the big tracks it would pay them if they got 104 days in the year. I have been trying to get information on this subject and all the information I get is entirely to the contrary. Is this statement which was made to the noble Marquess really a statement on which he can place absolute reliance, or is it not?

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

We settled this question about the number of days five hours ago. I do not understand why we are going back on it.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

It is quite true that we had a discussion on this matter some time ago, but the noble Marquess just now proceeded to correct a statement he had made, to the effect that Wembley was satisfied with 104 days. He corrected it by saying that he meant the White City. Subsequently to that the noble Duke produced very definite evidence that those concerned at the White City had no such views at all. Therefore I think that the discussion of the number of days has a certain amount of point, in view of the fact that the noble Marquess himself raised the question. We have yet to have from the noble Marquess direct evidence that the statement he made had any foundation at all; he has not yet given us the foundation. He says he has reason to believe, but we have reason to believe exactly the contrary.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

Does the noble Lord mean that we voted because of that one single sentence in the noble Marquess's speech? It did not affect my vote in the slightest degree. I judged the question on broad general grounds. The number of 104 days is quite enough. We know the mischief that these tracks have been doing and we get rather impatient with this niggling way of dealing with a great moral evil.

LORD ASKWITH

I do not suppose that anything whatever would ever move the right reverend Prelate's idea that 104 days is quite sufficient for greyhound racing. I dare say he would have preferred 52 to 104 days. Fifty-two being added to 104 turns his blood cold. This afternoon Wembley was cited as the salient instance. The noble Marquess said that Wembley, the largest and most important greyhound racecourse in the country, or words to that effect, was satisfied with 104 days, and therefore presumably all the others were to be brought down to the same category. It appeared that the noble Marquess had some information which I had not got at the time, and I was very amazed to hear that Wembley was satisfied with 104 days. The noble Marquess now says he made a mistake, and that Wembley is not satisfied, but he cites the White City. I have never heard of the White City being satisfied with 104 days, nor has the Duke of Sutherland. Then he cites Mr. Garland-Wells, and I am perfectly certain—

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

No.

LORD ASKWITH

If I made a mistake in what I heard, I apologise. I cannot conceive, from the information I have had through continual sittings with those gentlemen who have been trying to meet the Government over this matter, that any London course would be satisfied with 104 days in the year.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I shall not ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment. We have wandered rather far from the point, but apparently the Government prefer to maintain bad racing, unclean racing, as against clean racing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ASKWITH moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection: (4) Any applicant for a licence which has been refused under this section may appeal, in accordance with the provisions of the Quarter Sessions Act, 1849, to the next practical Court of Quarter Sessions having jurisdiction in the county borough or place in which the track situate and held not less than twenty-one clear days after notice of the refusal is given to him by the licensing authority. In any case arising under this subsection the notice of appeal shall be given to the licensing authority and to the clerk of the peace.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides that on the refusal of a licence there should be a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. In the Bill the right of appeal is granted under Clause 15 in certain cases of revocation of licences, and the suggestion put down in my name and in that of Earl Howe is that in connection with an application for a licence, and in a later clause in connection with an application for the renewal of a licence, a similar right of appeal to Quarter Sessions should be granted.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Amendment proposes that the applicant for a licence to authorise the provision of betting facilities should have an appeal to Quarter Sessions against the refusal of the licensing authority to grant a licence. Under the Bill as it stands at present no machinery is provided for an appeal against the decision of the licensing authority (the county council or county borough council, as the case may be). It will be observed that under the noble Lord's proposal only the applicant for a licence is to have a right of appeal. The Bill provides that various interested parties—such as the Police, persons residing in the neighbourhood and the local authority of any adjoining district—may make representations to the licensing authority; but under Lord Askwith's proposal these interested parties would have no right of appeal against a decision by the licensing authority to grant a licence although they might consider themselves very injuriously affected thereby. The Government could not in any event agree to a system of unilateral appeal in this matter.

The Government are opposed to the proposal that there should be an appeal to Quarter Sessions from the decision of the licensing authorities, on several grounds. First of all, while there may be precedent for an appeal from a county council to Quarter Sessions, there are obvious objections to an appeal from one county authority to another of equal standing. Further, in a county borough with its own Quarter Sessions it is clearly undesirable that the Recorder should have power to override the decision of the county borough council, except on matters of law. The licensing authority will be mainly concerned with questions of fact, such as local amenities. In counties, many of the most experienced justices are also members of the county council, and the proposal that there should be an appeal from the county council to county Quarter Sessions means therefore an appeal to a tribunal which would be deprived, in hearing the appeal, of the services of Some of its most experienced members, who would be disqualified from sitting by reason of the fact that qua members of the county council they were interested parties. I think it should be observed that if any licensing authority exercises its functions in an improper manner any aggrieved party would have the right under Common Law to appeal to the High Court for a mandamus and the decision of the licensing authority would then go for review of the High Court. For the reasons I have put forward I feel that there is no need for the Amendment, but this is a matter which will require to be looked into between this stage and the next, and perhaps the noble Lord will leave it at that.

LORD ASKWITH

I will put the Amendment down again on Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD POLWARTH moved to insert the following new subsection: (4) The decision of the licensing authority shall be final. The noble Lord said: This Amendment comes also from the County Councils Association and was put down in order to clear up the situation. Under Clause 15 there is provision for an appeal from the decision of the licensing court. In this clause it is uncertain whether there is an appeal or not. If the Government had accepted the last Amendment providing for an appeal there would have been no necessity for this Amendment. I do not know whether the Government will tell us whether they mean that there should be an appeal or not. Having refused the last Amendment providing for an appeal, perhaps the noble Marquess will accept the Amendment that the decision of the licensing authority should be final. But we wish to know where we are. It does not seem to me that the Government can refuse both.

We must have it one way or the other, as we are anxious to know what the position is. Perhaps the Government will tell us that it is their intention that the decision of the licensing authority should be final. The County Councils Association are very anxious that they should not be left in doubt and should not be subject to endless litigation. I do not really mind which position is adopted. We are willing to have an appeal court, and if such a court is to be constituted perhaps proposals may be brought forward for that purpose at a later stage. But if there is not to be an appeal, let it be clearly stated. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 38, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Polwarth.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I am advised that the Amendment the noble Lord has moved is unnecessary for it is a general principle that no appeal lies from a decision of any authority unless specific statutory provision is made for such an appeal. The Bill makes no provision for an appeal from the decision of the licensing authority and as the Bill stands the decision of the licensing authorities would be final. I think that it is very undesirable that provisions such as the present Amendment which are otiose should be inserted in Statute.

LORD POLWARTH

It is the opinion of many authorities that it requires to be cleared up and stated whether it is final or not.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to

Clause 7:

Special provisions as to first licences for certain, existing tracks.

(5) A licence granted by virtue of this section in respect of an existing track— (a) shall, unless revoked under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, he in force from the date on which it is expressed to take effect until the expiration of five years from the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirty-five; and

LORD SANDERSON moved, in subsection (5) (a), to leave out "five" and insert "three." The noble Lord said: The part of the clause to which my Amendment refers is intended to protect existing tracks from the effects of the possibility of their licences not being renewed. There are possibly tracks which do not conform to the conditions of licensing under the Bill. They may be in crowded areas or may be a nuisance to people in the neighbourhood and it is possible that their licences would not be renewed under the conditions of the Bill. The clause is so designed to protect the vested interests and to give them time perhaps to wind up or to move into areas where they would be more likely to get their licences renewed. I think that if they need this sort of protection they do not need so much as the Bill gives them. I do not think they need five years in order to take the necessary steps to make themselves secure; and if they are in places where their licences are not likely to be renewed, it is rather hard on the people who live in those neighbourhoods to have to put up with them for five years more, without any possibility of getting rid of these tracks. I therefore think that, if they must be protected in this way, three years should be quite adequate. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 14, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").—(Lord Sanderson).

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I shall be coming within the censure of the noble Lord who sits behind Lord Sanderson if I venture to accept the Amendment which he puts forward. The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to reduce from five years to three years the moratorium enjoyed by existing tracks from the requirement to obtain a licence under Clause 6 for the provision of betting facilities. The Government have decided that in view of the outlay involved in the erection of a track, it would be unreasonable to expose existing tracks to the risk of being closed down through the immediate application to them of the licensing provision contained in Clause 6. It has seemed to the Government that in the case of recently erected tracks, a moratorium of three years would not afford the owners a reasonable time within which to secure some return on their capital. I would venture to point out to your Lordships that a Bill of this description was before another place in 1933. That Bill was introduced by Sir Walter Smiles and that Bill proposed a measure of local control over the erection of greyhound tracks. That Bill was before a Standing Committee of another place last Session, and the Committee agreed that existing tracks should be exempted for five years from the requirement to secure a licence. I think, therefore, that when we take all these matters into consideration your Lordships will consider that it is only just and proper that a space of five years should be allowed rather than three, which is proposed by the noble Lord.

LORD SANDERSON

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ASKWITH

I presume the noble Marquess considers that the same suggestion as was made with regard to the Amendment on page 6, line 38, applies to the Amendment in my name, and so I do not now move the proposed new subsections.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Duration and transfer of licences and fees in respect of licences and transfers.

8.—(1) Subject to the provisions of the last preceding section as to the first licences granted in respect of certain tracks, a licence shall, unless revoked under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, be in force for seven years from the date on which it is expressed to take effect.

(2) The licensing authority, if they think fit, may at any time, on an application made to them after notice in writing to the chief officer of police, direct that a licence granted to any person in respect of a track, or the site of a proposed track, within their licensing area shall be transferred to another person, and thereupon the transferee shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be deemed to be the holder of the licence:

Provided that, if the transferee is not the occupier of the track or the site, the transfer shall not take effect until he becomes the occupier thereof.

(3) In the event of the death of the holder of a licence, his legal personal representative shall, during the period of one month from the date of the death, be deemed to be the holder of the licence, notwithstanding that it has not been transferred to him.

(4) In respect of every licence, such annual fee not exceeding fifty pounds as the licensing authority, after taking into consideration the expenses likely to be incurred by them in administering this Part of this Act, may fix for their area shall be payable to them during the currency of the licence by the person who is for the time being the holder thereof, and the first of such payments shall be made to them on the day on which the licence takes effect, and subsequent payments shall be made to them at intervals of twelve months thereafter.

(5) In respect of any transfer of a licence, such fee, not exceeding ten pounds, as the licensing authority may fix for their area shall be paid to them by the person to whom the licence is transferred.

LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "three months" for "one month." The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment. The legal proceedings generally take some time and it is suggested that a month is insufficient to enable the legal personal representative of the deceased holder of a licence to make any arrangments with regard to it. It is therefore suggested that three months should be substituted. Is that accepted?

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 11, leave out ("one") and insert ("three").—(Lord Bayford.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

That is accepted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved to leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert the following new subsection: (4) No fine, rent or other sum of money (except a reasonable sum in respect of legal or other essential expenses) shall be payable for or in respect of a licence. The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is somewhat similar to that of the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith. The facts of the matter are that dog racing tracks are really some of the largest ratepayers. They contribute one-sixth of their takings to the Entertainments Tax. They also pay Income Tax. I am open to correction here, but I understand that in the cases of cinemas and similar places of entertainment they do not pay anything for a licence at all. It does not seem fair that dog racing tracks should have to do so. After all they provide work in the neighbourhood and trade for the shop-keepers. These tracks pay contributions equal to 2d. in the£in rates to their localities and Income Tax specialists say that 200 dog racing tracks contribute 2d. in the £ to the Income Tax.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 14, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

Clause 8 (4) of the Bill empowers a licensing authority to charge an annual fee not exceeding £50 in respect of the grant of a licence, and a fee not exceeding £10 in respect of any transfer of such a licence. The Amendment moved by the noble Earl would be quite unworkable. I do not quite understand what is "a reasonable sum in respect of legal or other essential expenses," and who is to determine what that sum should be. The noble Earl has drawn an analogy from the licensing of premises for films, but I think it is open to doubt whether the same conditions apply in respect of greyhound racing tracks. The purpose of such a charge is merely to cover the increased expenditure incurred by the local authority and in no way to levy a tax upon the promoters of tracks. I feel that the noble Earl's Amendment would be unworkable in practice.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (4), to substitute "five pounds" for "fifty pounds." The noble Lord said: I must say that the sum of £50 really seems a penal sum for the small amount of trouble and expense entailed in granting a licence. The only expense that would be incurred, I am informed, would be the initial cost of applications, their renewal and possible revocation under Clause 15. None of that expenditure is of an annual nature. An annual fee of £50 in respect of every licence is unreasonable and I suggest it should be reduced to £5.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 15, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("five").—(Lord Askwith.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I think exactly the same arguments apply to the noble Lord's Amendment as to the one moved by the noble Earl opposite. In fact the annual fee of £50 errs if at all in being too low, having regard to the expense to which the licensing authority will be put in exercising their functions. I do not think that it can be seriously contended that a sum of £50 represents a very heavy charge on the holders of a licence for a dog-racing track.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Will the noble Earl say why there should be an annual fee when there is only a periodic expense?

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "after taking into consideration the expenses likely to be incurred by them in administering this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I am moving on behalf of the County Councils Association, and as the money goes into or comes out of their pockets, and as they have got to administer the Act, I think their opinion is worthy of some consideration. They do not consider that an estimate of the expenses likely to be incurred in administering Part I of the Act would produce a satisfactory basis for the annual licences. I understand that the Government will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 15, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 17.—(Lord Bayford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD

The next Amendment which stands in my name is consequential on the last. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 18, leave out ("for their area") and insert ("annually").—(Lord Bayford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ASKWITH had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (5), to leave out "ten" and insert "five." The noble Lord said: I suppose the same argument will apply to this Amendment as applied to the other which I have moved. I am sorry to see this Bill being turned into a taxing authority as well as a disability authority. I do not move the Amendment.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Fixing of days on which betting facilities may he provided.

9.—(1) A reasonable time before the beginning of each calendar year, every licensing authority shall fix one hundred and four days in that year as the days on which betting facilities may be provided on licensed tracks within their licensing area, and the days fixed in pursuance of this section are in this Part of this Act referred to as "appointed days":

Provided that a licensing authority shall not be bound to fix in advance appointed days in any calendar year if it appears to them that at the commencement of that year no licence in respect of a track in their licensing area will be in force, but, if they avail themselvse of this provision, then, so soon as they grant a licence to take effect on any date during that year, they shall proceed to fix appointed days in the period between the day preceding that date and the first day of the next year, and the number of the days to be so fixed shall be twice the number of the complete weeks in that period.

(2) The appointed days fixed by a licensing authority shall be the same for the whole of their licensing area, and shall not include any Good Friday, Christmas Day or Sunday.

(3) In this section the expression "week" means a period of seven consecutive days beginning on a Sunday.

LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (1), to omit the words "every licensing authority shall fix one hundred and four days in that year as the days on which betting facilities may be provided on licensed tracks within their licensing area" and insert: the occupier of every licensed track shall submit to the licensing authority within whose area such track is situate a statement specifying the days (not being more than the number of days permitted under this Act) on which the said occupier proposes to hold meetings at which betting facilities may be provided and subject as hereinafter provided the licensing authority shall approve and fix such days. Provided that where there are more tracks than one in the area of any licensing authority, in the event of the occupier of every licensed track in the area failing to submit proposals to the said licensing authority under which the days proposed shall be the same in respect of every such licensed track, the licensing authority shall in their discretion fix the days.

The noble Lord said: This is rather a variation of the Amendment which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, earlier, which at least gives the occupier of a track some opportunity of having a say in what days would suit him. It provides that he shall send in a list: specifying the days (not being more than the number permitted under this Act) on which the said occupier proposes to hold meetings …and… the licensing authority shall approve and fix such days as the drays on which betting facilities may be provided; provided that if there are more tracks than one in an area and they do not agree, the licensing authority may decide the matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 29, leave out from ("year") to ("and") in line 32, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Askwith.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Clause 9 of the Bill proposes that the licensing authority shall fix the 104 days on which alone betting facilities may be provided on all tracks in its area. The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved proposes that the days should be selected by the occupiers of licensed tracks. If there is only one track, then the days selected by that track shall be fixed by the licensing authority. If there is more than one track and all the occupiers agree upon the same days, then the licensing authority is required to fix the days so selected as the appointed betting days for that area. If the occupiers of the several tracks in any area cannot agree upon the betting days for that area, then it will be for the licensing authority in their discretion to fix the days.

The principle underlying the Amendment of the noble Lord is that the consideration which ought to be decisive in the choice by the licensing authority of the appointed betting days is the interests and convenience of the occupiers of tracks. It is admitted that this is one of the considerations which the licensing authority ought to take into account, and for this reason the Government propose an Amendment to Clause 9 the effect of which would be to require the licensing authority to take into consideration any representations made to them by the occupiers of tracks or by the promoters of sporting events on those tracks. But there are other considerations to which weight ought also to be given by the licensing authority. Days selected by occupiers of tracks may coincide with days on which it would not be in the interests of law and order, or would lead to undue traffic congestion, to allow betting facilities to be provided on tracks. Again, two adjoining licensing authorities (say, a county council and a county borough council) may not desire to appoint a joint committee to exercise the licensing functions, but may nevertheless deem it advisable to have some consultation about the choice of days, for example, in regard to two tracks which draw their attendance from the county borough, one being within the borough and the other just outside in the county area.

Under the noble Lord's proposal these two tracks could in certain circumstances suit their own commercial advantage by so arranging the days on which they chose to have betting facilities as to provide facilities for almost continuous betting for residents in the borough. I think your Lordships will realise that the Government could not accept a proposal which allowed one of the principles on which the Bill is based to be frustrated in this manner. In a matter of this sort the Government think it would be wrong to deprive the licensing authority of any discretion in the fixing of these days: and they feel sure that licensing authorities can be trusted to hold the balance fairly between the conflicting interests of different sports and will give full weight to all relevant considerations. If the noble Lord will consider all these matters I think he will see that his Amendment, besides infringing one of those principles which are the bed-rock on which the Bill stands, includes provisions which will not benefit the case which he has at heart.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1) and insert the following new subsection: (2) In any case where a licence in respect of a track comes into force subsequent to the commencement of any calendar year the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply in respect of such track as if in lieu of two hundred and eight days there were substituted such number of days as is equivalent to four times the number of complete weeks between the date when the licence comes into force and the first day of the next year. The noble Lord said: This is that where a licence in respect of a track comes into force subsequently to the commencement of this Act, the provisions of the Act shall apply as if a proportionate number of days was substituted. One hundred and four days having been accepted as the number of days it may be that this Amendment is not quite right now.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 35, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 2 on page 10, and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I think this is an Amendment which is consequential upon another Amendment which appeared on page 1, at line 10. That Amendment proposed that the number of betting days should be 208. The House has not accepted that proposal and I think this Amendment is consequential on that earlier Amendment, to which the noble Lord's name was not attached.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Will the noble Marquess consider the possibility of substituting 104 days for 208, and twice for four times, because the Amendment is not entirely consequential? The object of the Amendment is to enable a track which opens in the middle of the year to get its due proportion of betting days.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert: (3) Before fixing appointed days for any year, a licensing authority shall consider any representations which may have been made to them by the chief officer of police, or by persons concerned in the management of tracks within the licensing area or concerned in the promotion of sporting events on such tracks. The noble Earl said: The Bill provides that the 104 betting days shall be fixed by the licensing authority for all tracks in their area. During the Second Reading debate this proposal was criticised on the ground that the betting days should not be fixed by the licensing authority, and it was suggested that they might appoint as betting days days which were quite unsuitable. The Government are satisfied that in fixing the betting days the licensing authorities will take into consideration the views of all the tracks whiclh would be affected by their decision; but to allay any fears this Amendment specifically provides that before fixing the appointed betting days the licensing authority shall consider representations made to them by chief officers of Police or by persons concerned in the management of tracks in their area or concerned in the promotion of sporting events on such tracks.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD

I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he has realised that on some of these dog racing days they have two, and even three, meetings in a day. Does he realise that what he really ought to restrict is not the number of days but the number of meetings, and before the further stages of the Bill will he take that, which is a very real point, into consideration?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

It is quite true that there have been more meetings than one on one day. But, while it is possible that there may in practice be any number of meetings, one will find that local conditions and local exigencies will so operate that the number of meetings is not as excessive as it might be. However, I will consider that point before the Report stage, but I think I can give the noble Lord a number of reasons why the number of meetings is not likely to be so excessive as he thinks possiblie.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Establishment of totalisators on dog race courses.

10.—(1) Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the contrary, it shall be lawful on any licensed track being a dog racecourse for the occupier of the track or any person authorised by him in writing—

1. (a) to set up, and keep a totalisator, whether in a building or not; and
2. (b) on any appointed day, while the public are admitted to the track for the purpose of attending dog races and no other sporting events are taking place on the track, to operate a totalisator so set up, but only for effecting with persons resorting to the track betting transactions on dog races run cn that track on that day;

and for any person to effect betting transactions by means of a totalisator lawfully operated.

(2) The occupier of a licensed track—

1. (a) shall not, so long as a totalisator is being lawfully operated on the track, exclude any person from the track by reason only that he proposes to carry on book-making on the track; and
2. (b) shall take such steps as are necessary to secure that, so long as a totalisator is being lawfully operated on the track, there is available for bookmakers space on the track where they can conveniently carry on bookmaking in connection with dog races run on tle track on that day;

and every person who contravenes, or fails to comply with, any of the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of an offence.

(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 EARL OF EFFINGHAM moved to leave out all words after "authorised by him in writing" in subsection (1), and to insert at the option of the said occupier of the track his servant or agent to set up, and keep any totalisator or any other form of mechanical betting whether in a building or not, and/or to provide facilities for bookmakers either in conjunction with the aforesaid totalisator or mechanical form of betting or separately as and when the said occupier of the track, his servant or agent shall determine.

The noble Earl said: The reasons for this Amendment are very many and most important as far as the public, the local authorities, who license, and the future of sport of all kinds are concerned. Whilst of course those who legitimately have adventured their capital in providing us with proper open-air simple entertainment in the form of dog racing are to be considered to some extent, the principles at the root of this Amendment are broader and more vital than any sectional or class interest. The proper conduct and future of systems of betting require the most careful and exact method of experiment, and if I may respectfully say so, His Majesty's Government have been profoundly wise in not sheltering themselves behind the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Bettings Report, 1932–3, and accepting blindfold every recommendation and decision without question or consideration. His Majesty's Government have shown a wise discrimination in endeavouring to continue experimentation in this most important section of the workers lives—namely, the method in which they spend their leisure. The Government have on other occasions considered cinemas (Sunday and other day performances), at one time and another ice and roller skating rinks; they are now considering lotteries and bridge parties.

I approach the Racecourse Betting Control Board Fifth Annual Report and Accounts, 1933. On page 41, in Appendix 7, I find some very interesting facts set out as to the use of totalisators abroad as well as in His Majesty's Dominions. I have had inquiries made also and, as one would expect, find this Government document, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 7th May. 1934, is strictly accurate although very specially condensed. I found it necessary therefore to supplement it, keeping of course to the principles as set out in the Report. In the Irish Free State the Fourth Annual Report shows a gradually increasing popularity of mechanical betting, but one finds also that there are other types (three) in use as well. In South Australia they have all sorts and conditions of rules as to licences and bookmakers, but I shall not go into them, nor into the position in France.

I therefore have placed on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House this Amendment which leaves at the discretion of the expert track owner (compulsorily so, for his capital, reputation and good name are at stake) whether his patrons, the local authority, and the fashion and custom of the locality and the orderly conduct of his track call for (a) totalisator alone, (b) mixed totalisator and bookmaker, or (c) bookmaker only. The examples I have quoted show the views of the most modern methods, and it will be noted far outstrip any disciplinary factor yet obtaining in this country either for totalisators or bookmakers of the ready money or credit varieties, but at the same time proving that as in this country betting has obtained for hundreds of years, so even the oldest form of betting maybe made applicable to the wants of the public. The question may be legitimately raised: Does the introduction of the use of the totalisator in British greyhound racing tracks make the "bookie" now a superfluous trader, who could be eliminated entirely from racecourses? Some hold that it seems of the two methods the totalisator is preferable, as, subject to expenses, the backer gets the full advantage of his speculation, whereas if the bet is with a bookmaker, a proportion of the stake is absorbed by him for his profit, this constituting a serious drain of money from the backers as a class.

Again, the Secretary of State may prescribe conditions as to the nature of the totalisator. Once more the totalisator may indeed by its installation in some cases act as a disciplinary factor upon the bookmaker. It is not difficult to visualise a position where, if the bookmakers combined in a general dislike about either a local authority, the official of a local authority, some agent or agency of the track, or even the management of a track, they could boycott the track entirely; and whilst many patrons go to races for purposes other than betting, and whilst others would use the totalisator, there are many who still desire to have their betting contracts done humanly and not by a machine. That "bookie" and "tote" and both are the guarantee and safeguard of the public is the general view of the man in the street. In the Bill, although authority is given to the track management to set up totalisators on licensed dog tracks, this provision is not compulsory; the management may or may not have to instal a "tote" at their own discretion. On the other hand the Bill makes it compulsory that bookmakers be allowed to carry on a betting business on approved dog tracks. I do not think it should be compulsory to have a totalisator, neither do I think it should be compulsory to have bookmakers; it should be left to the option of the management to decide which form of betting in their opinion would be most satisfactory to patrons of their track. It does not follow that tracks would choose bookmakers as their betting medium, nor does it follow that all tracks would use the totalisator method alone. I think if track owners were permitted the option they would use both forms of betting. What might be satisfactory to patrons in one locality would be unsuitable to patrons in another locality, and it should therefore be at the choice of the management what facilities for betting should be available.

I do not know of any other business in which an expensive organisation can be used for trading by persons who do not contribute anything towards the capital outlay of such organisation, but merely use the same even though it is provided by another person to carry on a business which enables this outsider alone to carry on his trade. The public in the long run will decide which form of betting they prefer, and if then the management refuse to accept their judgment the owner suffers. It is, therefore, in the interests of track owners meticulously to investigate which method or methods is or are preferred and supply the same. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 13, leave out from the beginning to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Effingham.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The Amendment proposes that the occupier of a licensed track may set up and keep a totalisator or any other form of mechanical betting, and provide facilities for bookmakers either in conjunction with the totalisator or mechanical form of betting, or separately, as and when the occupier shall determine. I think your Lord ships' attention should be directed to the fact that the Amendment does not empower the occupier to operate a totalisator although he may set up and keep one. On the analogy of the Racecourse Betting Act of 1928, which expressly empowers the Racecourse Betting Control Board to operate a totalisator, it is possible that the Courts would hold that the power to set up and keep a totalisator does not include the power to operate it, and, in the second place, the Amendment would place the bookmaker entirely at the mercy of the occupiers of the track. The bookmakers could be excluded from tracks at the absolute discretion of the occupier in order to secure a monopoly and swell the profits which an occupier would derive from the operation of a totalisator. The essence of the scheme in the Bill is that the totalisator should be legalised as an alternative form of betting, and that the backer should have the chance of deciding which alternative he prefers. The noble Earl who has moved this Amendment I think has intended, by omitting paragraph(b) of subsection (1) of Clause 10, which limits the operation of a totalisator to certain appointed days, to empower the occupier to operate the totalisator on any day that he thinks fit, provided that the totalisator is not operated on more than the 104 days in any calendar year. I am afraid that for a second time I have to inform the noble Earl that the Amendment he has moved is against the fundamental principles of the Bill and that whether by means of bookmaking or by a totalisator no betting shall take place except on the 104 days appointed by the licensing authority. I therefore regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD STRABOLGI

Before we part from Clause 10 may I raise one point with the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill? As I read this clause the totalisator may be set up on a greyhound racing track and operated on certain days of the year and then, if I may quote your Lordships the actual words of subsection (b): on any appointed day, while the public are admitted to the track for the purpose of attending dog races and no other sporting events are taking place on the track, to operate a totalisator … Earlier in our proceedings the noble Marquess spoke of other tracks where betting might take place. He instanced motor car tracks or dirt tracks. I understand that one of the fundamental principles of the Bill, according to the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, is to provide an alternative means of betting. Why is it that only the people who attend dog race meetings are to have this alternative means of betting Why are they to have this privilege, and why not the people who attend motor car races or running events? I understand that on certain tracks other events take place besides dog racing. If it is within the 104 allotted days, why should not people have this privilege of having an alternative means of betting on other sporting events? Why single out only the greyhound racing for this privilege?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I think the noble Lord is aware that the totalisator is extended to dog races, against the recommendation of the Royal Commission, for the purpose of giving a system of betting which the backer desires; but the specific question which the noble Lord is asking me is whether the totalisator shall be extended to other forms of sport on those 104 selected days.

LORD STRABOLGI

When other events take place on the same track.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I am not quite certain about the answer, but I will look into the matter and give the noble Lord an answer on that point.

LORD STRABOLGI

I am obliged. But the noble Marquess will admit that the words are rather vague and should be made clear.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

Prohibition of betting with young persons.

14.—(1) If on any track—

1. (a) any bookmaker or commission agent has any betting transaction with a person apparently under, or known to him to be under, the ago of seventeen years; or
2. (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.

LORD POLWARTH moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to leave out "on any track." The noble Lord said: I regret that it is only at a very late hour that this important clause dealing with the protection of the young comes before us. I am speaking, not on my own behalf, but on behalf of the Scottish National Council for Juvenile Organisations, which embraces representatives of all the societies and bodies that deal with the welfare of young people of both sexes. In moving this and one or two following Amendments it is not necessary at all, I am convinced, to argue as to the evil effects of betting and gambling on young people.

LORD ASKWITH

May I ask the noble Lord to which Amendment he is speaking?

LORD POLWARTH

I am speaking on the Amendment on page 12, line 23, to omit the words "on any track." The effect of this Amendment is, or would be, to prohibit betting off the track as well as on the track. We welcome very heartily the clause as it stands, forbidding betting with young persons under seventeen years of age. I do not think that even the most ardent supporters of dog racing desire to see young people involved. It is particularly dangerous when so many of them are unemployed, and left without other interests to occupy them. I may be told that this Amendment is out of order and that this Bill deals only with betting on a track, but in submitting this Motion I am asking your Lordships to give effect to the recommendation on page 112 of the Royal Commission's Report, paragraph 378: We recommend that it should be an offence for a bookmaker or anyone acting on his behalf knowingly to have a betting transaction with a person under seventeen years of age. It is intended to prevent a bookmaker or his assistant carrying on betting with young people possibly at some spot just outside the track.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 23, leave out ("on any track.")—(Lord Polwarth.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I would point out that this Bill deals only with on-the-course betting and on that account it is undesirable that in this respect the provisions of the Bill should be extended to off-the-course as well as on-the-course. Further, it is doubtful whether the provision is really required. Under the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act, 1892, it is illegal to send betting circulars to persons under twenty-one and the Street Betting Act provides special penalties against bookmakers who have betting transactions with persons under the age of sixteen in streets and public places. In the case of a bookmaker, the only form of betting open to him off the course is credit betting where persons do not resort to his premises, and there is no reason to believe that persons under sixteen run credit accounts with office bookmakers. As already pointed out, the existing law makes it impossible for office bookmakers to tout for customers among persons under twenty-one. I submit therefore that the Amendment does not seem to represent any present public need and for that reason and because it is outside the proposed scope of the Bill, the Government are unable to accept the Amendment.

LORD POLWARTH

In view of the stable Earl's statement that the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

As there are several Amendments to this clause perhaps your Lordships will think this a convenient moment to adjourn the further consideration of this Bill. I am quite ready to go on as long as your Lordships think desirable, but we have not made bad progress and I think it might be convenient now to break off and for the House to resume.