Lords Sitting of 31 May 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a
NORTH LINDSEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TORQUAY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to enable persons injured on the road by a motor vehicle (other than motorists themselves) to recover compensation, in certain cases, without proof of negligence on the part of the defendant; and to make other provision in connection with the matters aforesaid. I move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CLYDEBANK AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LEEK) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WYCOMBE AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, it will not, fortunately, be necessary for me to detain you in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill is in the usual form, but it concerns only one site—namely, that which lies between the Central Telegraph Office and King Edward Street, E.C., and adjoins premises already owned by the Post Office in King Edward Street, Angel Street, and Roman Bath Street. It is put forward in order to increase the accommodation necessary for housing the Department of the Chief Engineer, which for many years past has been in a very unsatisfactory position. In 1925 the situation was eased for a time by the renting of a large. building known as Alder House, but in spite of this the Department continued to grow, as I am afraid these Departments do, and the result is that at the present time the Department of the Chief Engineer of the Post Office is housed in no fewer than seven different buildings, some from 200 to 300 yards away from Alder House. The total staff to be housed is about 1,060.
It is desired to end this extravagant arrangement by Christmas, 1938, by which time there is a break in the lease of Alder House premises, and it is therefore necessary to acquire the new site at an early date. Several of the occupiers are unwilling sellers and it will not therefore be possible to acquire the new site without compulsory powers. As regards cost, the valuation of the site according to an Inland Revenue estimate is £151,650 and according to an estimate of His Majesty's Office of Works the total cost of acquiring the site

651
will be £155,000. The rough estimate of the cost of building is £282,000. I may say that this expenditure will be met by a Post Office loan and not by money voted by Parliament. As regards the annual cost of the proposed scheme, allowing for the interest on the cost of the site and for interest and depreciation on the cost of the building, it is estimated that the annual cost will be £16,705. But against this the saving of rent will be £18,657 and the rental value of excess accommodation in the new building amounts to £15,000. I see the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, in his place and I am sure he will be glad to hear that the Government think they will be able to save roughly £17,000 a year by this arrangement.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I hope you will continue to do that to a still greater extent.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I need only add that agreement has been reached with the several public authorities having interests in the Bill and they do not oppose it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (COAL MINES) BILL.
Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rockley.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I do not wish it to be thought that I object to the principle of the Bill and the last thing I would suggest is that the noble Lord in charge of it is responsible for the drafting of the measure. But I think I ought to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the great alterations which are suggested by the Amendments placed on the Paper by the noble Lord. The Bill as it has come up from another place consists of about 360 lines in six clauses. Of these it is now proposed to invite your Lordships to omit something
652
like 200 of these lines and to insert about 200 new lines leaving only about 167 lines of the original Bill. If any illustration was required of the necessity for this House I do not think you could have a better example. The Bill requires revision from one end to the other and that is admitted by the promoters. Whilst the principle of the Bill ought to be accepted, I am going to move a few small verbal alterations, and I thought it right at this stage to draw the attention of the House to the great changes that will be made in the text of the Bill if the noble Lord's Amendments are carried.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Insurance of owners of coal mines against liability to their workmen.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the owner of a coal mine shall not, at any time, employ any workmen for the purposes of that mine unless there is in force between the owner and an authorised insurer a contract of insurance insuring the owner against all liability under the principal Act to those workmen in respect of their employment by him for those purposes in the course of some period current at that time:
Provided that, for the purposes of this subsection, a contract of insurance shall not be taken to be other than a contract insuring the owner against all such liability as aforesaid by reason only that the indemnity afforded by the contract does not, in the case of any injury by accident or disease resulting in incapacity for work, extend to payments by way of compensation in respect of the incapacity which become payable before the expiration of a period of twenty-six weeks from the date on which the incapacity begins, other than payments which are outstanding at the time of, or become payable after the happening of any of the following events, that is to say:—

(a) the owner becoming bankrupt or making a composition or arrangement with his creditors; or

(b) if the owner is a company, the company commencing to be wound up, or a receiver or manager of the company's business or undertaking being duly appointed, or possession being taken, by or on behalf of the holders of debentures secured by a floating charge, of any property of the company comprised in, or subject to, the charge.

(2) If the owner of a coal mine employs any workmen in contravention of this section, he shall, for each week in the course of which he so employs workmen at any time, be liable on summary conviction to

653
imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine; and where an offence under this section committed by a corporation is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the corporation, he, as well as the corporation, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall he liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that where any person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of the employment of workmen at any time for the purposes of a coal mine by the owner thereof, it shall be a defence to prove that at that time—

(a) there was in force an instrument (hereafter in this Act referred to as "a compensation trust") conforming with the requirements of the Schedule to this Act, for securing by means of a special trust fund the discharge of all the owner's liability under the principal Act to workmen in respect of their employment by him for the purposes of that mine in the course of some period current at that time; and

(b) all the owner's obligations for the time being under the compensation trust had been discharged.

In this subsection the expression "week" means a period of seven consecutive days beginning on Sunday.
(3) The trustees under any compensation trust shall be deemed to be trustees not only for the owner of the coal mine and his legal personal representative, if ally, but also fur the workmen, and the due administration of the trust shall be enforceable accordingly, and the provisions contained in a compensation trust in accordance with the Schedule to this Act shall be valid, notwithstanding any rule against perpetuities.
(4) In this section the expression "authorised insurer" means—

(a) an insurance company or an underwriter in whose case the requirements of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, with respect to deposits by assurance companies and deposits and guarantees by underwriters are complied with; or

(b) a mutual indemnity association;

so, however, that a mutual indemnity association formed after the end of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-three shall he deemed, for the purposes of this section, not to be an authorised insurer unless the association has deposited the sum of twenty thousand pounds with tile Accountant General of the Supreme Court in pursuance of the following provisions of this Act.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "for the purposes of" and insers "in or about." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really one of a legal character, dealing
654
with a drafting point. The noble Lord, Lord Rockley, seeks to alter the words in the original Bill and to insert new words, as indicated by the Amendment Paper, so that the subsection would read "for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at that mine." The words in the Bill, "for the purposes of," are quite vague. They are not Parliamentary words at all, they are not applicable to coal mines, and we have to go to the Coal Mines Act, 1911, where we find in Section 80 these words:
"Where, in or about any mine, whether above or below ground, any accident occurs…"
The words I want to introduce are the words that appear in that Act, "in or about" the mine. Everybody in the coal trade knows who the men are employed in or about a mine. They would not know who the men might be, if they were referred to in a part of this clause coming after such vague words as "for the purposes of."
As an illustration of my point, it might be to the interest of a coal owner to cut wood "for the purposes of" obtaining pit props or some other purpose; but if he did that, we will say in a plantation some distance away, it would obviously be "for the purposes of" the mine, but the men employed "in or about" the mine would not be so employed. The Act of 1911 states quite clearly who are the people who are intended to be covered—all those people who are on the wage lists connected with the colliery. There is no justification for the words adopted by the noble Lord. The noble Lord later on, in the Definition Clause, adopts the words of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and therefore this Amendment is quite consistent with the Bill in that respect.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("for the purposes of") and insert ("in or about").— (Lord Gainford.)
LORD ROCKLEY: Referring in the first instance to what Lord Gainford said about the alterations in this Bill, I quite appreciate his remarks that, though I moved the Second Reading, I was not responsible for the drafting originally. But I would certainly endorse and emphasise his observation that the number of Amendments to the Bill that may be

655
necessary in this House shows how very valuable the revising functions of your Lordships' House are. Anybody who wished to argue that a Second Chamber was necessary could not have a better illustration than in this Bill, which is wholly non-Party and yet requires so much amendment after it has left the House of Commons.
As to the specific Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, I quite appreciate that these words are used in the Coal Mines Act of 1911, but I understand that there is some doubt legally whether they are the best possible words to use, and the words which I am proposing—"for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at that mine"—are an effort to come to a compromise on this rather difficult interpretation. Whatever words are used I presume would be inserted by insurance companies and mutual indemnity associations in regard to the cover which they give to coal owners, and the words actually used in such documents now, I am told, differ widely. It seems therefore desirable that we should endeavour to use the best possible words in this Bill that we can arrive at. While I think I must for the moment press that the words which stand in my name should be here inserted, because they are also inserted in Amendments to other parts of the Bill, which would make it a little difficult at the moment to change them, I am quite willing to leave the matter open for further consideration on Report.
LORD GAINFORD: The words which the noble Lord has suggested are absolutely vague. The Coal Mines Act of 1911 defines who are the men "in or about" a mine. This is a Compensation Bill for coal mines, and therefore it is absolutely important that we should now insert the proper words, for the legal definition of the men employed "in or about" a mine. These words are known, they are understood by the Home Office. they are understood by everyone in the trade, whereas the words which the noble Lord proposes would extend to a great number of people employed in different kinds of work connected with the purposes of the colliery and yet quite outside the colliery. If the noble Lord desires at a later stage to deal further with the matter he may do so,
656
but at the moment I wish to press my Amendment.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I would remind your Lordships that the expression "in or about" contained in the noble Lord's Amendment was carefully considered when the Bill was drafted, and at that time those words were rejected on the ground that they were of too geographical a nature and might be held to exclude men actually employed in connection with the mining part of the undertaking at some place not actually on the mine premises. On the other hand, at that time it was felt it would not be right to compel a colliery company to insure in respect of men employed, not for the purposes of the mine, but in some other industry such as iron and steel works or shipping, and the plan adopted in drafting the Bill was to require insurance in respect of men employed "for the purposes of" the mine and to define men in such a way as specifically to exclude any part of the mine premises in which the manufacturing part of the undertaking is carried on. In these circumstances the Government have been advised that it could hardly be held that the Bill applied in respect of the employment of workmen for the purposes of the manufacturing part of an undertaking, still less could it be directed to workmen employed on ships run not merely for the purposes of the mine but as shipping undertakings, although under the same company. Although the Government approve of the principle of the Amendment, they feel that the words proposed by Lord Rockley would fulfil the purpose better than the words of the noble Lord opposite.
LORD GAINFORD: After all, I have some knowledge of this subject, and I repeat that the words in the Bill are much too vague. The men employed "in or about" the mine come within the jurisdiction of His Majesty's inspectors of mines, and they include all the men who are shunters and engine-men and anyone who works at a colliery whether above ground or below ground. Therefore, it seems to me only right that at this stage we should put in words which are understood by everyone in the trade and understood by the workmen them-

657
selves, and not introduce these slovenly words which may open the door for other people to be included.
LORD ROCKLEY: May I point out that the noble Lord himself uses the words "for the purposes of" the mine in a subsequent Amendment on this clause Therefore, I imagine there is something to be said for the use of these words. I repeat that I am quite willing, if he win let my words stand to-day, to consider the matter further on the Report stage and see if we cannot devise better words which will please him.
LORD GAINFORD: The words "for the purposes of" the mine in my later Amendment have nothing to do with the men employed. It is because the
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "for the purpose of," to insert "the undertaking carried on at." The noble Lord said: This is really an attempt to meet Lord Gainford's point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("of") insert ("the undertaking carried on at").—(Lord Ruckley.)
words in this case are used in relation to the particular men this Bill is intended to affect that it is important a distinction should be made.
LORD ROCKLEY: I can only hope that the noble Lord will accept my words, offered ih a spirit of compromise at this stage, with the promise that they will be carefully considered later.
LORD GAINFORD: I feel that the matter is so important that I must press it to a Division.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Hereford, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Knutsford, V.

Hindlip, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Jessel, L. [Teller.]

Addington, L.

Kilmaine, L.

Bathurst, E.

Amulree, L

Kylsant, L.

Bradford, E.

Askwith, L.

Lamington, L.

Feversham, E.

Atkin, L.

Latymer, L.

Fortescue, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Merrivale, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Biddulph, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Lucan, E.

Boston, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carrington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Redesdale, L.

Peel, E.

Rennell, L.

Plymouth, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Rockley, L. [Teller.]

Cranworth, L.

Strathoona and Mount Royal, L.

Astor, V.

Danesfort, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Daryngton, L.

Templemore, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Woodbridge, L.

Hailsham, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Mersey, V.

Hutchison of Montroes, L.

Illingworth, L.

Buxton, E.

Arnold, L.

Polwarth, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Clwyd, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denman, L.

Rhayader, L. [Teller.]

Dudley, E.

Ernle, L.

Sanderson, L.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Esher, V.

Greville, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Strachie, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "force" down to the proviso and insert "either—

(a) a contract of insurance subscribed by an authorised insurer, being a contract which (subject to the exception mentioned in the next following subsection) insures the owner against all liability under the principal Act in respect of the employment of workmen by him or any other person for those purposes at that time; or

659

(b) an instrument (hereafter in this Act referred to as a 'compensation trust'), conforming with the requirements of the Schedule to this Act, for securing by means of a special trust fund the discharge of all the owner's liability under the principal Act in respect of the employment of workmen as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection."

The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment except that it puts the compensation trust on the same footing as the two permitted methods of insurance. In so far as the proof of the commission of an offence is concerned, I would note that the owner is responsible for the insurance of workmen employed by contractors, and this Amendment is to make quite clear that the whole extent of the owner's liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, is included in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page line 9, leave out from ("force") to the end of line 13, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY rose to move the omission of all words in the proviso in subsection (1) down to and including "outstanding" and to insert:
"(2) The exception allowed by paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection is as follows, that is to say, that the indemnity afforded by the contract of insurance need not, in the case of any injury by accident or disease resulting in incapacity for work, extend to payments of compensation in respect of the incapacity which become payable before the expiration of a period of twenty-six weeks from the date on which the incapacity begins, other than payments which are due."
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I had better say at once that I have had handed to me a manuscript Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, which, if your Lordships accept it, will entail a number of other manuscript Amendments in other clauses consequential thereto. Perhaps I had better read the manuscript Amendment. It is to strike out of the proposed new subsection the word "incapacity," in line 6 and the words that follow, in order to insert the words "total or partial incapacity for the first twenty-six weeks of such incapacity."
LORD ROCKLEY: I was under the impression that this was only a drafting Amendment and that it would be dealt with accordingly. It has been carefully
660
considered by the interests concerned and I did not know that there was any serious objection to the words proposed.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("at") in line 6 on page 2 and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rockley.)
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to leave out of the proposed new subsection the first "incapacity" and all words thereafter and to insert the words "total or partial incapacity for the first twenty-six weeks of such incapacity." The noble Lord said: I quite appreciate the intention of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, but this is a technical matter and I think he does not appreciate that the words he proposes would not apply to existing conditions under the law. At the present time if a man is injured and is away from work, say, for three weeks and then is given a light job for three weeks but is again incapacitated owing to the original injury, he is paid for the whole period of incapacity even if the twenty-six weeks is not a continuous period. Even if there are breaks in the period he can still claim to be paid compensation by the employer for twenty-six weeks. Hewould be paid even though the broken periods of incapacity extended over a year instead of being twenty-six consecutive weeks which the noble Lord's words would cover.
The words which I propose would enable a man to get his full compensation for twenty-six weeks even if there were a series of breaks during that period when he was receiving full wages or partial wages. It is the custom in the industry to pay compensation to a man and then, if on a doctor's certificate that he can work he goes back to work for a time but breaks down again owing to the original injury, he is compensated, not by an insurance company, but by the employer. It is in order to meet the case of breaks in a period of incapacity that it is necessary to insert the words which I propose and I hope that the noble Lord will accept them.
Amendment to the proposed new subsection moved—
Line 6, leave out all words after ("the") to the end of the subsection and insert ("total or partial incapacity for the first twenty-six weeks of such incapacity").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD ROCKLEY: I feel some difficulty in arguing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, but I understand that his proposal has been carefully considered by the parties chiefly concerned and has been turned down. It would be very helpful if we could have legal opinion on the matter, because I am not quite sure of the effect of shortening the period as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford. I am informed that the matter has been carefully considered by technical authorities, who think the other wording is better.
LORD GAINFORD: I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but I know what I am talking about and his words do not meet the case of breaks in a period of incapacity. It is in order to protect the workman and to prevent him being deprived of full compensation in the event of going back to work that I ask that these words be inserted. It is in the interests of the workman and of everybody concerned. I do hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment because I have taken the best legal advice I can and I am assured that it is in the interests of the men that it should be made.
LORD ATKIN: I should like to suggest to my noble friend that he should bring up this Amendment again after giving notice so that we might have the opportunity of considering it. It is difficult to deal with an Amendment of this character as a manuscript Amendment which we have not had before us. The Amendment moved by Lord Rokley is a drafting Amendment to carry out what was agreed to in another place. If we are to consider another proposal I think it would be better to have the Amendment before us.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I hope my noble friend will agree to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord. It is extraordinarily difficult to pronounce a legal opinion upon an intricate matter of this kind without having the words before us.
LORD GAINFORD: In the circumstances I will withdraw my Amendment now, and put it down on Report.
Amendment to the proposed new subsection, by leave, withdrawn.
On. Question, original Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY: The next three Amendments on the Paper are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("is proved to have") and insert ("has")
Page 2, line 28, leave out from the second ("or") to ("facilitated") in line 29.
Page 2, line 34, leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 5 on page 3.—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: move to leave out this subsection because it deals with a matter for which provision is made in a new clause which I shall move be inserted after Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (4), to substitute "nineteen hundred and thirty-four" for "nineteen hundred and thirty-three." The noble Lord said: As I explained on Second Reading, this Amendment is necessary to enable the Bill to operate fairly in regard to existing companies. The Bill as drafted would not give mutual indemnity associations a fair opportunity of setting their house in order before the end of the year. There are only three of them and they are large, substantial concerns which can deal with the situation between now and the end of the year. This is a retrospective measure. These three large companies are quite prepared to do what is necessary between now and the end of the year, and in order that they should be dealt with fairly is necessary that the date should be changed to 1934. The main argument for the provision that a sum of £20,000 should be deposited was that it was necessary in order to prevent the mushroom growth of little associations, but if you penalise existing concerns by asking them to deposit £20,000 before the Bill comes into operation you will be doing something which is grossly unfair. It would only lock up money and instead of helping insurance it would have the reverse effect.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD ROCKLEY: On this matter I understand from the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment that there are only two or three indemnity associations which are really concerned with this Amendment, one in North Staffordshire, one in Lancashire, and one, I think, in Cumberland. Against the Amendment it should be pointed out that the £20,000 to which the noble Lord referred, when deposited, will still form a part of the association's reserves, although of course it can only be used in the event of liquidation. It should not therefore be necessary for those associations to start with a larger initial reserve merely and solely because of the fact that £20,000 of their reserve money will be deposited with the Supreme Court rather than with their own bankers. The reason for this provision is that it is naturally desired to hinder the formation of new mutual indemnity associations which might not have adequate financial resources. It must be obvious that if this Amendment were passed, possibly some associations unsound financially might be formed, and associations of that nature would be a very real danger. That is the reason why I think the noble Lord's Amendment would be a mistake.
I would like to add, again with some diffidence, in regard to those special cases, that where the whole situation is quite bona fide, I believe it would be possible for the bodies concerned to alter their articles of association and to meet the case by that means. It is not a very difficult matter to alter articles of association. They need not re-form themselves into a new association. If they are already existing they have merely to go to the High Court and go through the usual procedure to alter their articles of association to suit the position.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I should like to amplify the words which have fallen from the noble Lord behind me. I understand that the object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to exempt from making the deposit certain mutual indemnity associations formed between the end of 1933 and the date upon which this Bill is to come into operation, January 1, 1935. One should consider the object of the important provision which is at present in the Bill. At present the mutual indemnity associations are not under the obligations of ordinary insur-
664
ance companies laid down by the Assurance Companies Acts, with a view to securing their financial stability. Any small group of employers can form themselves into a mutual indemnity association.
The intention of the provision in this Bill, in Clause 1, subsection (4), is to discourage the formation of unsound mutual indemnity associations which might to some extent evade the intentions of the Bill. For example, as has been quoted, a few coal owners might comply with the letter of the law as regards compulsory insurance by forming themselves into a small mutual indemnity association with insufficient financial backing, and much evil might obviously arise in consequence of the formation of such an association. It is accordingly proposed to require a deposit from associations formed after December 31, 1933, that is, a date just before the publication of the Bill. I understand that the motive behind the noble Lord's Amendment is to enable certain coal owners to wind up their own mutual indemnity companies and form a new one without having to make a deposit. This procedure is, I understand, not necessary in order to meet the requirements of the Bill. It appears that they can simply amend their articles of association, that is, the old mutual indemnity association, for that purpose, without winding up the company and forming a new one. The procedure which they are understood to contemplate might have the advantage to the coal owners of saving them something in Income Tax, but it would obviously have the effect of weakening the resources of the mutual indemnity association, and this of course would be contrary to one of the chief objects of the Bill. Therefore, for these reasons strong objection can be taken to the Amendment, especially as it is two years since the Mining Association urged that full cover should be given, and in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the coal owners ought to have taken steps dealing with this matter previous to the end of 1933.
LORD GAINFORD: Of course, with the Government against me I shall not go to a Division, but I must protest against the suggestion that there are likely to be any mutual indemnity societies of this sort formed by coal owners between now and the end of the year. We have already told the Home

665
Office as plainly as coal owners can that by the end of the year every workman will be fully covered whether a firm goes into liquidation or not, and therefore the whole of this Bill is really unnecessary. We do not object to the principle; we want every workman to be covered properly, and it is only in the interests of three mutual indemnity societies—and quite big ones—that this Amendment is moved. I suggest that it is unnecessary that they should be compelled to put up £20,000 and be penalised in the way suggested by the Home Office. Although I think it is very unfair, I shall not go to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Information as to insurance to be given to workmen]:
LORD ROCKLEY: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, after ("of") insert ("the undertaking carried on at").—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has handed in a manuscript Amendment on page 4, line 2, and also another manuscript Amendment later.
LORD GAINFORD: None of them arise.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: As none of them arise, with the noble Lord's permission I will not put them.
LORD ROCKLEY: My next Amendment is really a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 6 and insert ("in respect of the employment of workmen, within a specified period current at that time, for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at the mine").—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 22, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 26, and insert ("in respect of the employment of workmen, within a specified period current at that time, for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at the mine").—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY: The next Amendment is purely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("by the owner").—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, at end insert:
("Provided that where by reason of the death of a person who, at the time when the compensation trust came into force, was the owner of the coal mine to which the trust relates, his personal representative is the owner for the time being of that mine, any notice signed by the deceased owner For the purpose of paragraph (b) of this subsection shall have effect for that purpose as if it were also signed by the personal representative").—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Effect of certain contracts of insurance]:
LORD ROCKLEY: I have nothing further to say upon the first Amendment all Clause 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert ("in respect of the employment of workmen for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at that mine").—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY: The next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 26, at end insert ("and in the following provisions of this section the expression 'claim to which this section applies' means, in relation to any such contract of insurance as aforesaid, any such claim under the contract as arises out of a liability under the principal Act in respect of the employment of a workman after the commencement of this Act for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at a coal mine.")
Page 5, line 32, leave out from ("claim") to the end of line 35 and insert ("to which this section applies").—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY: The next is a drafting Amendment too.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, leave out from ("claim") to ("has") in line 43, and insert ("to which this section applies").—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert:
"(4) For the purpose of determining, as regards any liability under the principal Act in respect of employment after the commencement of this Act for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at a coal mine, whether the workman has any, and if so what, rights by virtue of subsection (1) of Section seven of the principal Act in relation to a contract of insurance to which this section applies, but for no other purpose—

(a) the insurer shall be deemed not to be, and never to have been, entitled to avoid the contract on the ground of any misrepresentation or non-disclosure of material facts on the part of the insured, or on the ground that the answer to any question required to be answered by the insured in making any proposal for the contract was false or incomplete; and

(b) any admission or agreement whereby the said liability under the principal Act was established against the insured shall be treated as binding on the insurer, notwithstanding that it was made or entered into without his authority."

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rockley.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Would the noble Lord mind telling me how it is possible for an Amendment requiring at least three paragraphs to be merely a drafting Amendment?
LORD ROCKLEY: It is a redrafting of subsection (4) which it is hoped will read more intelligibly to noble Lords.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY: All my other Amendments to this clause are merely of a drafting nature.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In the circumstances I will put all the remaining Amendments in the name of the noble Lord to this clause together.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 27, leave out from ("Where") to ("insurer") in line 30, and insert ("an")
Page 7, line 1, leave out from ("the") to the second ("may") in line 2, and insert ("appropriate court")
Page 7, line 3, after ("insured") insert ("or his estate")
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("under") and insert ("by virtue of")
Page 7, line 9, at end insert:
("In this subsection the expression 'the appropriate court' means any court having bankruptcy jurisdiction, being a court within the area of whose jurisdiction the insured resided at the time when the workman acquired rights against the insurer by virtue of subsection (1) of Section seven of the principal Act, or, if the insured is a company, any court having jurisdiction to wind up the company.")—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Deposits by mutual indemnity associations]:
LORD ROCKLEY: The Amendment to this clause is merely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, after the first ("of") insert ("undertakings carried on at").—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY moved, after Clause (4), to insert:
Incidental provisions as to compensation trusts.
"5.—(1)The trustees under any compensation trust shall be deemed to be trustees not only for the person creating the trust and any person representing his estate, but also for the workmen to whom payments are to be made out of the trust fund, and the due administration of the trust shall he enforceable accordingly and the provisions contained in a compensation trust in accordance with the Schedule to this Act shall be valid, notwithstanding any rule against perpetuities.
(2) So much of Section sixty-seven of the County Courts Act, 1888, as limits the jurisdiction of a County Court with respect to the execution of trusts, shall not apply in relation to any compensation trust."
The noble Lord said: This is merely a new clause explaining compensation trusts.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Interpretation.
5. In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say,—
"Mine" and "owner" have the meanings respectively assigned to those expressions by Section one hundred and twenty-two of the Coal Mines Act, 1911;
LORD ROCKLEY LORD ROCKLEY moved to omit the definitions of "mine" and "owner" and insert:
"'Mine,' includes every shaft in the course of being sunk, and every level and inclined plane in the course of being driven, and all the shafts, levels, planes, works, tramways and sidings, both below ground and above ground, in and adjacent to and belonging to the mine, but does not include any part of such premises on which any manufacturing process is carried on other than a process ancillary to the getting or dressing of minerals or the preparation of minerals for sale."
The noble Lord said: This is a definition Amendment of what a "mine" means, and meets with the approval of legal authorities.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, leave out lines 35 to 38, and insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Buckley.)
LORD GAINFORD: The whole of the Amendments to Clause 5 are merely reciting words which are already in the existing Act, and in the opinion of my legal advisers the Amendments are quite unnecessary. Why is it stated that those who receive a royalty are not to be included when these exceptions are not in the original Bill? I do not take exception to the noble Lord's words, but they are unnecessary.
LORD ATKIN: I quite agree with my noble friend that the addition of these words does not add to what is already in the Bill, but most of us, and especially those who construe Statutes, have an objection to legislation by reference. It is far better that, definitions should appear in the Bill, and all, as I understand, that the Amendments do is to put into the Bill words which are now in the Coal Mines Act of 1911. I think it is a very good principle.
LORD ROCKLEY: Lord Atkin has replied exactly as I had intended to reply. I think many of us who have been in the House of Commons have heard legislation by reference denounced over and over again. It is a very inconvenient practice, and Committees in the House of Commons have repeatedly denounced it. It is really to carry out the principle that we should not have legislation by reference that these Amendments are moved.
LORD GAINFORD: I quite agree as to the inconvenience of legislation by refer-
670
ence, but my observations were really intended to apply to the second Amendment of the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
"'Owner,' in relation to any coal mine, means any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the mine or any part thereof, and in relation to a mine the business whereof is carried on by a liquidator or receiver, means the liquidator or receiver, but does not include any person who—

(a) merely receives a royalty, rent or fine from the mine; or

(b) in the case of a mine subject to any lease, grant or licence for the working thereof, is merely the proprietor of the mine; or

(c) is merely the owner of the soil and not interested in the minerals of the mine; or

(d) is merely a contractor for the working of a part of the mine or for the execution of any particular work thereat").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule:
SCHEDULE.
Requirements as to Form, Administration, and Provisions of Compensation Trusts,
7. The trust shall also provide for the following matters, that is to say—
(1) for requiring the trustees to effect, maintain, and enforce such contracts of insurance as may be necessary to cover the risk of the trustees having to make payments out of the fund by way of compensation in respect of the deaths of five or more workmen resulting from any one accident, and for securing that any sums paid to the trustees in settlement of a claim under any such contract of insurance shall form part of the fund; and
LORD ROCKLEY: All my Amendments to the Schedule are of a drafting character.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That being so, with the permission of the Committee I will put them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 7, after ("between") insert ("the person who, at the time of the execution of the deed, is")
Page 10, line 8, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")

671
Page 10, line 12, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")
Page 10, line 18, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")
Page 10, line 25, leave out from the second ("that") to ("for") in line 37, and insert ("whenever, by reason of any award or judgment against, or agreement or admission entered into or made by or on behalf of, the settlor or any person representing his estate, any sum becomes payable by way of compensation (being compensation which the settlor or his estate is liable under the principal Act to pay in respect of the employment of a workman, in the relevant period, by the settlor or any other person for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at the coal mine to which the trust relates) the trustees will, on behalf of the settlor or the person representing his estate, as the case may be, pay the amount of that sum out of the fund to the person entitled under the principal Act to receive it")
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("by the owner")
Page 11, line 7, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")
Page 11, line 12, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")
Page 11, line 14, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")
Page 11, line 33, leave out ("to meet emergencies")
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("owner's")
Page 11, line 45, leave out from ("reserve") to ("necessary") in line 46.
Page 12, line 4, leave out ("of the owner")
Page 12, line 9, leave out ("of the owner")
Page 12, line 25, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor or the person (if any) representing his estate")
Page 12, line 28, leave out ("of the owner")
Page 12, line 30, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")
Page 12, line 31, leave out from ("forthwith") to ("by") in line 32 and insert ("after any certificate has been duly transmitted")
Page 12, line 43, leave out from ("make") to ("resulting") in line 45 and insert ("out of the fund payments of compensation in excess of fifteen hundred pounds in respect of deaths of workmen").—(Lord Rockley.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in paragraph 7 (1), after "deaths," to insert "in excess." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill understands the usual
672
practice in connection with these trust concerns. The practice is for the responsibility for the payment of compensation for the first four, five or six deaths to be undertaken by the firm itself, and that could not exceed at the outside £3,000. Therefore it is usual (and I have a policy in my hand) to insure for all in excess of five, rather than insure the whole lot at double the rate of premium which they would have to pay for a policy covering any deaths. There is no risk whatsoever run by the workmen's representative of failing to get, say, £400, £500, or £600 compensation for an accident, because it is inconceivable that any firm carrying on a colliery should not possess sufficient assets to cover that amount. Therefore the practice has grown up to reduce the rates of premium to about ninepence—or up to 1s. 8d. in the most dangerous collieries—when the employer takes all the risk of the first five deaths in an accident; whilst any serious accident endangering the lives of more men would be insured against and the premium would be just half the amount if the smaller number of deaths is excluded. It is in order to meet this general practice in connection with all insurances of this kind that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 45, after ("deaths") insert ("in excess").—(Lord Coinford.)
LORD ROCKLEY: I think my Amendment with regard to amounts in excess of £1,500 really meets the noble Lord's point. My Amendment says that the trust fund has to insure only for death claims which exceed £1,500 in one catastrophe. This figure is based on the fact that the average cost of a death in the mines is £300, so that it is equivalent to insurance of all deaths over five in number. It would therefore seem to be what Lord Gainford really desires to accomplish, and the Amendment meets his case.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: As the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, has just said, his Amendment to the Schedule, page 12, line 43, is, I think, a compromise and has to some extent met the point of the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. The plan of the promoters of the Bill is simpler, inasmuch as it does not involve any averaging and other like difficulties, for the actuary can base his calculation on the assumption that anything in excess

673
of £1,500 will be recovered from the insurance company by the trustees. I am told that the official statistics show that the average cost of a death claim in the mining industry is about £300, so that £1,500 represents the normal cost of five such claims.
But I would like to point out that there is much to be said far leaving the Bill in its present form. The present position is regarded as being a reasonable and simple compromise between the representations of the coal owners and the arguments of others that the Bill should be amended in the opposite direction and that the figure "five" should be altered to "four," or three, or even (though this would be very complicated) that the trustees should be required to re-insure in respect of disablement as well as fatal cases resulting from a catastrophe causing more than a certain number of deaths or disablements. In another place there was much discussion on the question of allowing compensation trusts, and as to requiring the trustees to re-insure some of the risks, and at that time assurances were given to the miners' representatives that the provisions in the Bill as to compensation trusts offered a sound alternative to the coal miner insuring all the risks with an insurance company or a mutual indemnity association. It would appear important that the Bill should err on the side of financial soundness of the trust funds, especially as these trusts are in the nature of an experiment. I hope therefore that your Lordships will approve of the compromise that the promoters of the Bill have endeavoured to reach by not accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, but agreeing to that which your Lordships have already approved of in line 43.
LORD GAINFORD: I will not press the point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCKLEY: The remaining Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 1, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")
Page 13, line 9, after ("trust") insert ("and any remuneration which by the terms of the trust is payable out of the fund to any of the trustees")
Page 13, line 10, at end insert:
("(4) for securing that all such obligations to make payments to the fund as are imposed by the trust on the settlor in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall, where the settlor is an individual, be binding on his estate; and")
Page 13, line 28, at end insert:
("In the application of this paragraph to a compensation trust which is governed by the law of Scotland, there shall be substituted for the reference therein to Section one of the Trustee Act, 1925, a reference to the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921.")
Page 13, line 34, leave out from ("means" to the end of line 41 and insert ("liability under the principal Act incurred by the settlor or any person representing his estate in respect of the employment of workmen by the settlor or any other person for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at the coal mine to which the trust relates, and the liability under the principal Act which is so incurred in respect of the employment of workmen as aforesaid in any particular period shall be taken to be the compensation liability attributable to that period")
Page 13, leave out lines 43 to 45 and insert ("being a member of one or more of the following bodies, that is to say—

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

The Society of incorporated Accountants and Auditors;

The Society of Accountants in Edinburgh;

The Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow;

The Society of Accountants in Aberdeen;

The London Association of Certified Accountants, Limited;

The Corporation of Accountants, Limited").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY):My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before we proceed to the Amendments which have been put down I should like to make an observation. I

675
do not know the procedure in your Lordships' House sufficiently well to know to what extent it is usual to have these important Amendments put down on Third Reading. Some drafting Amendments are often put down on Third Reading, but I do not remember Amendments of this importance being put down at this stage. I should like to call the attention of the noble Marquess also to the fact that I think the majority of these Amendments were rejected on Report, and were, I think, also rejected on the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, no doubt feeling liberated from the very strict procedure that is usual in another place, seems to me to be stretching the procedure in your Lordships' House to rather extreme limits.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to what has been said by the noble Lord. I think I may say that none of these Amendments was rejected on a previous occasion. The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, will speak for himself, but, if I remember rightly, he withdrew his Amendment, hoping that something would be arrived at. I should be prepared to explain that the first of these Amendments was not one that had been put and rejected, and, as to the second one, that arose out of something on the Report stage, when it was too late to move an effective Amendment, and it is a question of new matter altogether. I therefore submit to your Lordships that in view of the fact that these are new Amendments, particularly the last one, I have not abused the procedure of your Lordships' House by putting them down.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not desire to discuss the exact nature of the Amendments standing in the name of Lord Rankeillour until he has expounded why they are of such a new character and why it became necessary to put them down at this stage for the first time. I confess, when I had read them, they seemed to me to be very reminiscent of discussions which had already occupied your Lordship's House for a considerable time, and in which my noble friend had been unsuccessful in persuading your Lordships to take his point of view. I do not wish to say more about the Amendments because I do not desire to say anything that would prejudice their discussion, but I would
676
agree, if I may say so, with what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said as to the undesirability of using the flexible procedure of your Lordships' House in the direction of putting down Amendments on Third Reading so as to turn the Third Reading into a kind of glorified Committee or Report stage. In this House, differing from another place, we have this extra latitude, this last opportunity of alteration, even after the Third Reading, on the Motion "That the Bill do pass," and it is open to a noble Lord to put down an Amendment for that stage, although we have been careful to mark the fact that this is an exceptional procedure by making it a rule that such an Amendment can never be even moved unless it has been printed and has appeared on the Order Paper. While it is a very convenient practice to have this reserve power, I think, if I may speak as one who, in some sense, is the custodian of the traditions of the House, it would be a very great misfortune if the existence of this power were utilised as an excuse for bringing up afresh and restating, with whatever ingenuity, points which had already been disposed of in Committee or on Report.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2:
Licences to search for and get petroleum.
2.—(1) The Board of Trade, on behalf of His Majesty, shall have power to grant to such persons as they think fit licences to search and bore for and get petroleum.
(2) Any such licence shall be granted for such consideration (whether by way of royalty or otherwise) as the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury may determine, and upon such other terms and conditions as the Board of Trade think fit.
(3) The Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after granting a licence under this section, publish notice of the fact in the London Gazette stating the name of the licensee and the situation of the area in respect of which the licence has been granted, and, if the said area or any part thereof is in Scotland, the Board shall also publish the said notice in the Edinburgh Gazette.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that where two or more separate applications are made for a licence or licences under this Act to search and bore for and get petroleum within an area or areas in which there is situate any land of which one or more of the applicants is or are the estate owner or estate owners the Board of Trade if satisfied that such

677
estate owner or such estate owners or any of them is or are able and willing to operate effectively the licence or licences for which he or they have applied shall not grant a licence to any person other than such estate owner or one of such estate owners or two or more of them jointly. For the purposes of this section and of the proviso to Section (Appeals) of this Act 'estate owner' means the owner of the legal estate in the fee simple of the land in relation to which tie expression is used."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has never been rejected in your Lordships' House. I have moved other Amendments which were rejected, and I was careful not to put them down again at this stage. Those of your Lordships who were present at the Report stage will remember that during the discussion on this Amendment I received considerable sympathy and support from many of your Lordships in regard to the principle which it embodies. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House was good enough to assure me, although he gave no guarantee, that he would do his best between the Report stage and the Third Reading to try and find words, either in the Bill itself or in the regulations, which would embody this principle, and for that reason I did not press the Amendment to a Division. Since the Report stage the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill has been good enough to communicate with me, and a very serious attempt, I know, has been made to embody words which give force to this principle. I understand that so far the noble Marquess has not been able to find such words. The principle, I think, is obvious, and is deserving of consideration and support. The principle is that where several applications are made to the Board of Trade for a licence to bore for petroleum and one or more of these applicants are surface owners, and the surface owners concerned are able effectively to operate that petroleum, the surface owners should have a preference of being granted a licence over outside companies or persons who have no interest in the locality or in the surface. I think that is a principle which receives the sympathy of the great majority of your Lordships.
I should like to put a case to the noble Marquess. Say, for instance, a licence was granted to a company, the AngloPersian Oil Company or any other, to bore for petroleum in Derbyshire. Sup-
678
posing they operated that licence and found petroleum in commercial quantities. That would stimulate interest in the possibilities of surrounding districts where, we will say, the company in question had not applied for or been granted a licence. There would in that case be a large number of applications to the Board of Trade for licences to bore in surrounding districts. In that case I consider the surface owner or surface owners, who have probably great geological knowledge of their own district, who are in every way capable of working that petroleum, and who have great sympathy with the amenities of their district, are the right people to bore and work that petroleum, provided they can operate their licence effectively. I understand that the position is complicated by the question of multiplicity of ownership, and I do not suggest that the Board of Trade should be denied the right to limit the number of licences granted. If there are applications from several owners, surely it is easy enough to divide a district into areas and grant so many licences for the entire district, and if there is more than one application for a certain district then the Board of Trade can force the surface owners to associate and work the district as an association.
I cannot see that there is any difficulty in embodying this principle. I think it is a principle which might well be embodied in the regulations rather than in the Bill itself. I feel that the noble Marquess is in sympathy with the principle, and I am sure the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is, because he gave me the definite assurance on the Report stage that he was. I hope they will continue, when the regulations are drafted, to embody this principle in the regulations if it can possibly be done, and I see no reason why it cannot be done.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, at end insert the said new proviso.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I have no desire to quarrel with the noble Earl for putting this Amendment on the Paper, because I know it is one over which he is considerably exercised. He has not, if I may say so, completely and accurately stated the case,

679
because as a matter of fact the Amendment was negatived on a previous stage; it was not withdrawn. But I think your Lordships are aware that that was owing to a misunderstanding which I should like to explain. The noble Viscount who leads this House made an offer to the noble Earl which the noble Earl was willing to accept, but the Amendment was put, and my noble friend was under the impression that that offer had not been accepted. That is one of the reasons why there is no Amendment on the Third Reading which carries out the object which the noble Earl has in mind. So the noble Earl himself has put down the Amendment which appears in the Paper. As the noble Earl says, he has been good enough to discuss this matter with me, and it has given me great satisfaction and pleasure to do what I could to meet him. I will only say at this time that I have certain sympathy with the object the noble Earl has in view and this is a matter which will continue to be watched. The Bill will pass from this place to another place, and will go through all its stages in another place, and I can assure the noble Earl, as I have done already, that this matter will be in our consideration, and when we feel something can be done to carry out the points he has in view without raising a vast number of anomalous difficulties, I can assure him that those steps will be taken.
But in relation to the Amendment itself, I would ask your Lordships to consider it from all points of view. The noble Earl envisages an owner as an individual who owns a large tract of land and is capable, from his knowledge and his financial position and his capacity to develop industry, of being able to undertake these duties, and that owner sees the possibility of somebody else obtaining-a licence unbeknown to him and searching for oil under his land. The difficulty which we have had to contend with is not in considering the position of the surface owner who is capable of discharging those duties which belong to a licence, but we have had to realise that there are owners and owners. I think it is accepted that for the finding and development of oil it is necessary to mark out large districts, and we might find, in a district so marked out, not one or two owners but, it may be, thousands of owners who occupy houses and villas and may own an acre of land
680
or less. The noble Earl is really saying that when it has been discovered that there is oil, or that there is a possibility of finding oil, then the owner of the land shall be allowed to come in and have a preference over someone else who may be applying for a licence. That means that when the oil is on the high road to being proven, the owner, who has had all these opportunities before of applying for a licence, will then come in and claim that he has a prior right to obtain a licence before another individual who does not belong to the district or, as the noble Earl says, is not so familiar with the geological aspect of the district over which he is desirous of receiving the licence.
In the position to which I have ventured to allude, that of there being a large number of owners, there is a great danger if the State took upon itself to say that an owner owning the surface should have a prior right. We might then find that individuals would go before the public proclaiming that oil had been found in the neighbourhood, and that oil would be found under the soil over which the surface owners in the area exercised a right at that moment. We might find a number of people imposing on a credulous public. We know from past history that that is not a very difficult thing to do. We might find them inveigling the public into putting up money for the purpose of searching for oil on the land and applying for a licence, as they might do under the noble Earl's Amendment, to bore for oil. There are thus many difficulties which crowd in, and make it very difficult to carry out the undertaking which my noble friend gave, although he put in the guarding words "all things being equal." But it is not possible to implement them by an Amendment in phraseology which would be satisfactory to your Lordships' House and which would make the administration of a Bill of this description a success. That is the difficulty with which we are faced at the present moment. I would venture to say that in no circumstances do I desire to close the door. During the time that this Bill is before another place I shall be in negotiation with those who have been advising me, and advising me with great skill, all through the stages of this Bill, and I can assure the noble Earl I will keep in close touch with them and, if it

681
is possible for phraseology to be put in which will cover the point that he is raising, that will be done.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Marquess, for his explanation and for his assurance that words will be embodied in the regulations, if words can be found. I hope your Lordships agree that this is a principle of considerable importance, and that if the noble Marquess fails to embody something which would cover surface owners against this injury considerable hardship would ensue. The position as the Bill stands at present is clearly this, that an outside company who may, or may not, be desirable people to do the work of finding oil in a certain district, go to the Board of Trade and apply for a licence, and there is no publicity whatsoever in connection with the application. The application can be granted to them by the Board of Trade in secret, and without anybody in the district—the surface owners, local authorities or anyone else—knowing anything about it until the licence is granted. The company in question then goes down and makes its arrangements with the surface owners locally. If those negotiations break down, the whole case goes for arbitration to the Railway and Canal Commission, and the surface owners have to stand by the ruling of that Commission and have no redress whatsoever.
They are in an invidious position. These surface owners may be people who have owned and worked the minerals under their soil for centuries, who have collected all the available geological data in the district, and who are in touch with the local authorities and have sympathy with, and regard for, local amenities. Yet these people might find themselves completely ruled out by an outside company who come in with a licence granted by the Board of Trade without any publicity whatever. I hope the noble Marquess will really realise that hardship and will continue to do something to amend a situation which at Present can be described in no other way than as socialisation. I beg leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "as soon as may be after" and insert "before." The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this
682
Amendment, to which there is a series of consequential ones, may be reminiscent of what happened in earlier stages, I can assure your Lordships that neither in form nor in substance was this present proposal put to your Lordships' House at an earlier stage. Similar Amendments were moved by myself or others, but they were always bound up with proposals and contingent on proposals for a public inquiry of some sort. Now I have to recognise that the idea of a public inquiry before a licence is granted has been settled by your Lordships' House and I do not attempt to raise that question again. All I do raise in this Amendment is that in this matter of licences Parliament shall preserve to itself a control over the Department issuing the licences. The substance of this is merely that after a licence has been granted there should be a short space of Parliamentary time in which Parliament can review the licence and can, if necessary, annul it. I should imagine that only in very rare cases would Parliament annul these licences.
After all, it is a protection for hasty and ill-considered action by the Board of Trade, which Parliament should have the chance to revise. In this Bill a new departure is foreshadowed and powers are about to be given to a Department to make the developments which are thereby involved. It is surely right that Parliament should not leave an absolute discretion to the Department, but should preserve to itself an opportunity for revision. I know it will be said that if the Minister does wrong in a matter like this his salary can be challenged in another place, but I think those of your Lordships who have been for any length of time in another place will realise how futile is that precaution. In the first place the mischief will have been done, and, secondly, when the question is raised it will be a matter of confidence, the resignation of the Minister will be involved and the whole Party machinery will be turned against any one who raises it. If, as I suggest, there should be a Notion to annul a licence the matter could be decided on its merits, the resignation of the Minister would not be involved, and if Parliament decided that a mistake had been made that could be corrected. I have perfect trust at present in the Board of Trade, but even the best

683
Board of Trade may make mistakes now or in the future. It seems to me only a matter of common sense that some protection should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("as soon as may be after") and insert ("before").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I suppose I am as much opposed to this Bill as the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment, but it seems to me that the effect of his Amendments taken together would be, I will not say to wreck the Bill, but to stultify it. Although I am entirely opposed to the whole principle of the confiscation of the oil belonging to landowners, yet I am bound to recognise that the House has settled that question and it seems to me that, that being so, all we can do is to try to get as many concessions as possible. Speaking as a landowner and a royalty owner, I think the Government have met us to a large extent, and although they have not given us as much as I should like, we are now treated better than was proposed by the Bill originally. As I read these Amendments they will make it almost a farce to proceed under the Bill, because before anyone could get a licence from the Board of Trade there would have to be long preliminary steps, and then that licence would have to be laid before your Lordships' House and before another place and could not be effective until both Houses approved. If one House dissented—
LORD RANKEILLOUR: It would have effect automatically unless one House dissented.
LORD STRACHIE: It seems to me, reading all the Amendments together, that the effect would be exactly as I have said, that it would be very difficult indeed to proceed at all. I would much rather the noble Lord had said on the Motion for Third Reading that the Bill was so bad that he would divide the House against it. In that case I should have been ready to go into the Lobby with him, but as the House has passed the Third Reading we have to think what is the best way of carrying out the Bill. Concessions have been made to a large extent and, as I read the Bill, when a licence has been granted the questions can be looked into. Under an Amendment which was agreed to by the noble Marquess regula-
684
tions "might" be made by the Board of Trade and the noble Marquess agreed that that should be compulsory. Now it is necessary that all regulations for carrying out the Bill shall be laid before both Houses. Those regulations must lay down certain rules as to licences and if the regulations are not satisfactory it will be open to your Lordships or to the other House to amend those regulations or declare them null and void. If they were declared null and void the effect would be that it would be impossible to proceed further with the licence.
I cannot see that there is any failure to give protection to the landowner or royalty owner in this matter. A very valuable concession was made by the noble, Marquess when, on the Report stage, he put into the Bill this provision:
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as conferring, or as enabling the Board of Trade to confer, on any person, whether acting on behalf of His Majesty or not, any right which he does not enjoy apart front this Act to enter on or interfere with land."
I may be wrong in my reading of that, but I think the ordinary plain man would say that that entirely protects landowners and royalty owners. I am quite aware that there may be certain difficulties, but as regulations have to be made it will be possible to amend them or reject them altogether. I speak of course under correction, but it seems to me that the fact that those regulations have to be made and laid before both Houses of Parliament is a very great safeguard. For the reason that I think it is no good trying to stultify the Bill, I think myself justified, in consideration of the concessions made, in opposing this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has just spoken has made the proper reply to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour. The Amendments which the noble Lord has put down on the Paper provide for publicity before the grant of a licence, for confirmation by Parliament after its issue, and apparently in his later Amendment for the possibility of annulment by the Railway and Canal Commission.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: That really is another point. That is not consequential at all. The last Amendment is an entirely different proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think that at this stage of the Bill it would be as well for me to deal with as many Amendments as I can and therefore I am dealing with the Amendments on the Paper. The noble Lord on more than one occasion has endeavoured to secure a provision of this nature in spite of the decision of the House having been taken against him. The noble Lord changes his point of view with great rapidity and really it is somewhat difficult to follow him. In the first stage he appeared as the champion of the landowner's rights. He complained that the Bill infringed those rights very seriously indeed. When I endeavoured to demonstrate, and I think succeeded in demonstrating to the satisfaction of the majority of your Lordships, that the rights of landowners were safeguarded, the noble Lord put down an Amendment to secure that the amenities of the neighbourhood should be properly safeguarded. The noble Lord was not successful with that Amendment and he followed it up by a letter in The Times in which his main complaint was that we have not interfered sufficiently with the rights of landowners and are allowing a landowner to dispose of his own land under such conditions as he pleases provided a voluntary arrangement can be made. Presumably the present series of Amendments is designed to achieve the same object as he outlined in his letter to The Times.
The noble Lord now raises no further objection where compulsory rights are applied for, but seeks to ensure that before a licence is confirmed the amenities of the neighbourhood shall be considered in every case, including those in which voluntary arrangements may be reached between the licensee and the landowner. As in the case of some other Amendments, the noble Lord includes words which I venture to say indicate very clearly that he has not yet fully appreciated the provisions of the Bill. For instance, the words in the last of this set of Amendments, "within five miles of the site of any work that may be authorised by the licence," would make the whole Amendment entirely valueless, as the licence does not authorise any works of any sort. Further, under the last Amendment it would be sufficient for any local authority merely to submit that
686
they objected to the confirmation of the licence on the ground of injury to the amenities of the neighbourhood to require the Court to annul the licence. If such a provision were accepted it would not be worth while proceeding any further with the Bill; we might as well drop the measure at this moment.
The Amendments which the noble Lord has put down are really on the same footing as the Amendments which have been put down before, and on which I ventured to address your Lordships at some considerable length. I have no further arguments to adduce in addition to those which I put forward upon that occasion for asking your Lordships to reject the Amendment which has now appeared on the Paper at this stage of the Bill. I have referred to one Amendment which comes later, and I would venture in that connection to say that it would not be right in our view that the responsibility for the decision should be passed on to the Railway and Canal Commission. The noble Lord now goes even further, and suggests that the Minister's exercise of his responsibility, which under one of his Amendments is to be subject to the approval of Parliament, may even after such approval be overridden by the Railway and Canal Commission. I am afraid, therefore, that I find it impossible to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, may I say one word upon this question, because I must confess that I did not entirely follow the argument of the noble Marquess on this point. I am not concerned and what I am saying is not dealing with a series of Amendments, because I am not interested in the proposed new subsection (4), and these matters about a local authority. I am dealing solely with the Amendment which I understand is before the House, and I really do not know why my noble friend discussed those questions of the local authority, five miles, and so on, because in my view they have nothing to do with the Amendment before us. Anything that I say is confined solely to the matter which is before us. I have never known before a series of Amendments which are not taken together and some of which are not necessarily relevant to each other, brought into the argument. I hope I may say respectfully to my noble friend, that I

687
am not interested so much in his letter to The Times,or even in his tergiversations, if such there were. Upon those grounds he has been criticised by the noble Marquess. May I therefore confine myself to the one Amendment before us in which I am interested, and that is this: that such licence shall be laid before the Houses of Parliament "and shall be deemed to have been granted unless it is annulled by a Resolution of either House"?
This point of course we have discussed in this House, and it has been discussed in another place, several times, and not necessarily upon this Bill. But the principle is a very much larger principle, I think, than the noble Marquess has told us; it is the question whether there shall be unfettered discretion in the particular Department to deal with these very important matters of licences, or whether this House or the other House shall have some control over the Executive. My noble friend, with his great knowledge of another House, has said: "What is the use of merely saying that you can attack the salary of the Minister?" We do not attack the salaries of Ministers at all, and therefore that sort of procedure, which might be useful in another place, although my noble friend says it is of no value, is certainly of less value in this House, where we do not proceed in that way. The only control which this House can have is by some Resolution of that kind, and I do submit that we ought not to diminish the authority which this House has, but ought rather to support it.
I hope that there are other noble Lords who feel that in a matter so controversial as this, where so many important interests are at stake, your Lordships should at least have an opportunity of some final word which does not delay this business more than about 28 days of the sittings of your Lordships' House. I therefore ask your Lordships entirely to sever this Amendment from the others, although the noble Marquess, with controversial ingenuity, has tried to suggest that this Amendment is involved with others which have no relation to it whatever, merely because they are placed on the Paper in the name of my noble friend. I therefore do hope that we shall confine ourselves to this Amendment and assert the right and authority of this House over the Executive.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Earl who has just spoken complained that my noble friend Lord Londonderry was dealing with these Amendments en bloc,and thought that this particular point had not been dealt with in my noble friend's argument, perhaps it is courteous at any rate to the noble Earl that I should endeavour to remind your Lordships of the position. The noble Earl has said that the question which is raised by the particular Amendment is one which has often, been discussed before in your Lordships' House. It certainly has been discussed before in your Lordships' House, and on this Bill, at least three times. There was some discussion about it on Second Reading; it was discussed again in Committee; it was discussed again on Report, and now it is brought up for the fourth time. It is remarkable that those of your Lordships who are speaking in favour of and supporting this Amendment, and who are discovering that some great principle of Parliamentary propriety is involved, happen to be those who are opposed to the Bill and who have done their best to defeat it from the time when it was introduced in this House. The answer which my noble friend Lord Londonderry made has been made so often, that he really repeated it in shorthand by reminding your Lordships of the previous arguments which have been submitted to this House.
We really must try to understand what it is that we are here dealing with. We are not here dealing with the question of taking rights to interfere with the surface or of obtaining oil compulsorily anywhere; we are dealing only with the question of the grant of a licence to a firm, a company, or an individual, to search for oil, and when that licence has been granted, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, pointed out, comes the question as to the negotiations which have to be entered into with any landowner before there is any possibility of entering upon anybody's land. The point, which was made so often that I almost hesitate to repeat it, is that the purpose of this Bill is to encourage people to search for oil in this country. We regard it as of great importance that if oil be present in commercial and payable quantities in this country it should be discovered and

689
worked. It is very important from the point of view of exchange, very important from the point of view of national wealth, and very important from the point of view which affects the Department of which I have the honour to be the political chief, the point of view of defence, that if oil can be found it should be worked.
What is the position with regard to searching for oil? It is a matter which requires very great geological skill and experience in order to determine what are the places in which oil can probably be found. It is a complete fallacy to imagine that anybody can go and dig in his back garden and expect to find oil, or that every owner of a villa or a plot of ground can sink a little well, perhaps with the assistance of a dowser, and proceed to find that he has got oil in payable quantities underneath it. That is not the way the thing is done. In fact, you have to study the geological conditions prevailing probably over a very large area; you have to bring a very great wealth of experience in other parts of the world to bear in order to determine whether the indications are such that in a particular district, which may be a very large one, there is a possibility of oil existing.
At present, all over the world people are searching for oil in likely places. If this Bill were passed only with the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, has so often sought to insert, under which there is to be publicity given and under which there are to be discussions and opportunities given to a variety of people to come in before the licence is effectively granted, then you may be sure that the persons whose business it is to search for oil will go to places where they are not subject so such interferences. There is no reason at all why they should come to England when they can obtain oil in other countries without running any such risk. It is essential, as has been pointed out before, that those who are to be encouraged to bring their great knowledge, experience and skill to bear in engaging upon this very expensive task of searching for oil should, before they start, be assured that if they by their efforts and skill and expenditure come to the conclusion that a particular area is likely to be oil-bearing, they shall not find all their labour and skill thrown away by
690
their application being made public and their knowledge given to somebody else, before they get a licence.
Therefore, we have always regarded it, and your Lordships have equally regarded it, as essential that if the Bill is to be effective for the purpose for which it is designed, those who apply for a licence shall be able to go to the Board of Trade and make their application, and if they satisfy the Board of Trade of their responsibility and reliability they shall then be able to get an effective and firm licence to seek for oil, without any risk of their labour being filched from them and their work and experience being frittered away, and their application being made public. It is only after a licence has been granted that any question comes in of whether they should have any right of interfering with the surface. Then it is quite right that everybody whose land may be affected should have a right to be heard, and that right is provided by the Bill.
It is vital that in the grant of licences a person who applies for a licence shall be able to obtain a licence from a responsible Department, without risk of competitors being practically invited to share the results of his labour and to put in objections and attempt to get a licence in his place, either in Parliament or before the Railway and Canal Commission or in any other way. Therefore we are bound once more to ask your Lordships to reaffirm, as you have said before, that this licence should be granted by the Board of Trade to applicants firm and not subject to review by Parliament. What is to be subject to review by Parliament under the Bill is the regulations which govern the grant of licences. Parliament has to be satisfied that the regulations are fair and that they provide for proper precautions to ensure that the right people shall get the licences. That is provided in the Bill as it stands. Once the regulations have been approved by Parliament then the grant of the licence under those regulations must be a Ministerial act.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I want to say only one word. I wanted to say something on a previous stage but reasons beyond my control prevented my attending here and taking

691
part in any debate. What I desire to say is that I hope there will be no question of passing the Amendment now proposed by Lord Rankeillour, because I cannot but think that if we did pass that Amendment it would tend very strongly to destroy what is the object of this Bill. I am not going into the arguments so well put by the noble Marquess who is responsible for the Bill, and by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. All I desire to say is that whilst I am, as a rule, in favour of keeping control in this House, so far as is possible, I do not think we have ever sought to extend that control in the manner which is now attempted. If we were to attempt to say that a licence granted should be laid upon the Tables of the Houses of Parliament we should be making it impossible to carry out the measure.
The only other observation I desire to make is that I support the Bill, but not, as Lord Strachie said he supported it, because I am against the Bill. All that I desired was to get certain explanations from the Government, and now after what has taken place I support the Bill and hope it will be carried. I think the Government are doing a wise thing in bringing this Bill before your Lordships. especially having regard to the concessions which have been made to meet the views of noble Lords in several directions. Surely if there is oil in any quantity in this country, we should take every step we can to make it easy and not difficult for prospecting to take place, and it can never be done unless some step of this character is undertaken. For reasons into which I need not enter I hope that the Bill will now be passed.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the position, but I think it simply comes to this. The Board of Trade under the Bill, if the Amendment is not carried. will have the power, though merely a Government Department, to grant a licence to anybody they choose. I am not at all sure that in the circumstances that might not lead to corruption, because if there is any oil in this country, and it can be found in any quantity, it will be a very profitable undertaking What I understand my noble friend desires is not that the Board of Trade shall not have power to grant licences, but that, a licence having been granted,
692
it is not to be effective unless, within twenty-eight sittings of Parliament, there has been no objection advanced against it. Why on earth should not that be done? Where is anybody hurt? We have waited for I do not know how many years, and so far as I know have not found oil. Why should we not safeguard our position and retain to this House some control over Government Departments in a matter of this sort? I cannot conceive how anybody can be hurt, but I can conceive that if the Amendment is carried there can be some control exercised over what are pecuniary considerations by Government Departments. In my own opinion we have got too much in the habit of granting powers to Government Departments and taking those powers out of the hands of Parliament. If the noble Lord goes to a Division I shall have much pleasure in supporting him.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will press his Amendment to a Division, and that your Lordships will support it, because I regard this method of secret negotiation as the most objectionable part of the whole Bill. It is the main point of difference between those who are opposing the Bill and the Government, and I cannot see why publicity before a licence is granted, and control by Parliament for a period of twenty-eight days, can possibly make any difference to the incentive put forward which the Government seems to be so anxious about.
The noble and learned Viscount in his reply just now talked about knowledge of the applicant for the licence being filched from him by this publicity, but what knowledge can he possibly have before the licence is granted? He cannot possibly have more knowledge than is possessed at the present time by the surface owners and the local authorities, who have all the geological data that have been collected for centuries. The company which is applying for this licence does not have access to the land until the licence is granted and until it has had its negotiations with the surface owners. Therefore it is impossible for that company to put down experimental boreholes or to have access to knowledge of the geological peculiarities of the district which is not available to everybody else. So there cannot pos-

693
sibly be any secret knowledge which they possess before the licence is granted which is not known to the entire district.
What can be the objection? We have never yet, I submit, had a satisfactory explanation from any member of the Government. Of course, your Lordships will realise that it is absurd that control by your Lordships' House should prevent any incentive to boring in the future. And in view of the fact that these secret negotiations can go on under the Bill between the Board of Trade and any company, who may be desirable or who may be very undesirable, unknown to anybody either in Parliament or, more important still, in the districts concerned, and the licence may be granted to an undesirable company without your Lordships having any say in the matter, I hope you will do everything in your power to oppose such a state of affairs.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, the noble Marquess made a considerable speech, the greater part of which was not directly against this Amendment at all, but against another one which I propose
to move. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was addressing himself, I cannot help thinking, to a former Amendment of mine, not this one. He spoke of the danger of cross-examining the promoters and of getting out their secrets. That forms no part of this Amendment. This Amendment deals only with one thing—namely, whether the Board of Trade shall have discretionary power to grant licences without the control of Parliament or whether within one Parliamentary month Parliament may revise that licence if it wishes. It does not require the licence to be laid on the Table for approval by Parliament; it only gives Parliament an opportunity in either House, if any serious objection arises against it, to protest against it. I cannot see my way to withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Halifax, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Mersey, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

De La Warr, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Feversham, E.

Hindlip, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Winchester, L. Bp.

Kilmaine, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Lawrence, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Addington, L.

Luke, L.

Midleton, E.

Alvingham, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Hunlly.)

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Askwith, L.

Merrivale, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Boston, L.

Palmer, L.

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Plymouth, E.

Rennell, L.

Stanhope, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Cornwallis, L.

Rochester, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cottesloe, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Danesfort, L.

Sanderson, L.

Astor, V.

Daryngton, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Esher, V.

Denman, L.

Stanmore, L.

Exmouth, V.

Ernle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

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

Strachie, L.

Goschen, V.

Gainford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hailsham, V.

Greville, L.

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sutherland, D.

Radnor, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Hampton, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Harris, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Jessel, L.

Bradford, E.

Hambleden, V.

Lamington, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Hereford, V.

Latymer, L.

Lloyd, L.

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

O'Hagan, L.

Effingham, E.

Banbury of Sontham, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Iddesleigh, E.

Carnock, L.

Polwarth, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Peel, E.

Cranworth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) The operation of every such licence shall be suspended until confirmed by the Railway and Canal Commission. Within two calendar months from the date of publication under this section Petitions may be addressed to the Commission by persons praying to be heard in opposition to the licence. The Commission shall not refuse to allow any such Petitions unless after a preliminary hearing they are of opinion that no prima facie case of injurious affection has been made out by the petitioner:
Provided that no Petition be disallowed by the Commission if it is submitted on the ground of injury to the amenities of the neighbourhood by any local authority having jurisdiction within five miles of the site of any work that may be authorised by the licence.
The expression "local authority" for the purpose of this section means the council of a county or county borough, of a municipal borough or of an urban or rural district; in Scotland the expression local authority' means the council of a county or of a burgh or of a district."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient for me to say that I do not move the next short Amendments—they are consequential. I propose to move a new subsection (4). In regard to this Amendment I wish first of all to repudiate the charge that I am abusing the forms of the House by bringing it forward. It is really brought forward for the first time. What happened was that on the Report stage an entirely new development took place and it appeared from the statements of spokesmen of the Government that the procedure, and the effect of the procedure, under the Bill was quite different to what had been anticipated before. The only way of clearing up the matter was to move to omit the whole of the main part of the clause. There was no time to devise anything constructive, and therefore this proposal has not been before your Lordships at all. What happened before was merely a technical means of eliciting a statement from the Government. In the second place I want to repudiate that I have changed my attitude in the matter. The noble Marquess said I was entirely in favour of the landlords' rights. As a matter of fact, I did not oppose the Second Reading, but I have opposed the procedure in this Bill because I think it is extremely inimical not only to the
696
landlords' rights but to the public rights, and it was on that ground I opposed it.
The noble Marquess, I think, misunderstood the effect of this Amendment. He said it would be in the power of a local authority to block the whole scheme provided any petition is disallowed by the Commission if it is submitted by the local authority. All I mean is that the local authority should have the right to be heard. It will not prejudge or fetter the discretion of the Commissioners in the least, and I think the noble Marquess cannot have fully appreciated the words in the Amendment. We had considerable discussion earlier on as to the proceedings before the Railway and Canal Commission, and various views were expressed, but it was not until the Report stage that it was made clear that in many cases the Railway and Canal Commission would not come into the matter at all. A good deal was said about compensation, about amenities and the rest, but that was all dependent on the matter coming before the Commission; but it came out in the Report stage that very often the Commission would not function at all in these matters. We know now that if the licence is granted the licence holder can take it and give compensation to the owners of the surface, and if the owners of the surface can be arranged with and terms made with them, then nobody else can protest at all. There will be no hearing before the Commission and no interested parties whatever can appear. The neighbouring landowner will not be able to petition in the matter; the occupiers will not be able to petition; the local authority will not be able to petition; and the whole question of public rights and the amenities of the neighbourhood depends on some landowners, it may be against their own material interests, standing out against the inducements offered to them by the licence holders.
I submit that that is an entirely wrong principle and destructive of the old tradition of Parliament. Nay, I think I may say it is destructive of the new practice of Parliament; because what did we have yesterday? Yesterday your Lordships passed these words with regard to licences for racing tracks on which betting is to be allowed:
"Upon the consideration by the licensing authority of an application for the grant of a licence, the following persons, in addi-

697
tion 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."
That was what your Lordships passed yesterday. Before a licence can be granted for betting on a racing track anybody has a right to petition and protest on the ground that the amenities of the neighbourhood will be injured or that the studies of the children in an orphanage will be disturbed, but under this Bill the local authority cannot make any protest on the ground that the amenities of the neighbourhood will be destroyed. A neighbouring landowner or occupier will not be able to protest that his water supply may be contaminated or that his interests in any other way may be adversely affected.
Why do I say that this is against the tradition of Parliament? Because of long practice and many precedents going back, I imagine, for hundreds of years, gradually ripened and developed. The utmost care has been taken by Parliament that when undertakers come forward with a scheme everybody who may be injuriously affected by that scheme shall have an opportunity, at any rate, of petitioning to be heard and of proving a prima facie case. It was my office for some eight years to administer the scheme of Private Bill Legislation, and I know how careful and meticulous Parliament has been so that all may be heard whose interests are affected. I submit that something of this kind is necessary, that it should not depend on the opposition of the surface owners whether a licence shall be carried out or not, but that those who are affected in the neighbourhood, and in particular the local authority, which ought to be the guardian of the amenities of the neighbourhood, and whose assessments may be most seriously affected by the provisions of this Bill, should at least have a chance of being heard. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, this is an Amendment which comes under the category of those that I have described before. The noble Lord is desirous of protecting the locality from the licence owner. I have endeavoured on more than one occasion to try to explain to the noble Lord that the licence does not carry with it any power to injure the locality. The licence carries nothing with it except the power to negotiate with the landowner, and, if the negotiations come to nothing, the licence holder will have the possibility of going before the Railway and Canal Commission to obtain what he wants. That is how the matter stands now. But the noble Lord desires, although the owner may have come to some arrangement with the individual who is desirous of finding oil, that persons should have some right of access to the Railway and Canal Commission before the licence can be confirmed. That really is asking a power which I hardly think can possibly be granted. The amenities of the district will certainly be taken into consideration, but the reparation which the individual will obtain is the reparation which he can obtain at Common Law. I cannot see how in any measure of this kind you can go further than is allowed in any other Act of Parliament. After all, if one considers the industrial history of this country, I do not know what would have been done if these powers had been in existence in the past. The position now is that a licence may be granted, and the individual will then have to negotiate with the surface owner and come to some arrangement with him, but to say that
"no petition be disallowed by the Commission if it is submitted on the ground of injury to the amenities of the neighbourhood by any local authority having jurisdiction within five miles of the site of any work that may be authorised by the licence "
is something we cannot contemplate.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I point out that the petition is only a request to be heard? They can, of course, disallow his objection afterwards. It is merely asking to be heard.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Railway and Canal Commission before whom these matters will come in the event of the individual or company being unable to agree with the owner, is a Court of Law, and that Court of Law can make its own rules and has its

699
own jurisdiction. I think that is the answer to the Amendment, which is one we cannot possibly accept.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I can merely say that if no provision of this kind is made the amenities of the countryside and the rights of the neighbours will be solely dependent upon the surface owners with whom the licensed holders may or may not agree, and as for Parliamentary precedents for those who are to be heard, as I have said already, we passed enough of them yesterday.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5:
Account of receipts and expenditure under Act.
5.—(1) The Board of Trade shall keep an account in such form and manner as the Treasury may direct of their receipts and expenses under this Act and that account shall be examined and certified from time to time by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) Before the first day of October in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-five and each succeeding year an account shall be prepared by the Board of Trade, in such form and in such manner as the Treasury may direct, of the moneys received and expended by bite Board under this Act during the last preceding financial year, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General shall examine and certify every such account and shall lay copies thereof, together with his Report thereon, before both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the Board of Trade shall prepare an account each year and that the Report shall be laid before Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power to make regulations.
6.—(1) The Board of Trade shall make regulations prescribing—
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, in subsection (1), after "The Board of
700
Tade shall," to insert "before granting any licence under this Act." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this Amendment for the sake of greater clarity and precision.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, after ("shall") insert ("before granting any licence under this Act").—(The Earl of iddesteigh.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, it was never intended that licences should be issued before the regulations have been made. The Amendment which the noble Earl has moved does clarify the position and I shall be glad to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments (Privilege) made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be again put into Committee read.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, in moving that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on the Betting and Lotteries Bill I desire to state that we are proposing to continue the debate on this Bill after dinner to-night.
Moved, That the House do now resolve into Committee.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 14:
Prohibition of betting With young persons.
14.—(1) If on any track—

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

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

then, in the first case, that bookmaker or commission agent and, in the second case, the occupier of the track on which the totalisator is set up, shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Upon a charge under this section in respect of a person apparently under the

701
age of seventeen years, it shall be a defence to prove that, at the time of the alleged offence, he had in fact attained that age.
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "seventeen" and insert "eighteen." The noble Lord said: When I considered putting down this Amendment my first thought was to suggest the age of twenty-one, and I think that would not have been an unreasonable thing to do. I believe that betting transactions with persons under the age of twenty-one are illegal in many of our Dominions, and of course it is illegal in this country to invite young persons under twenty-one to make bets or to send them betting advertisements. Therefore, it would not have been unreasonable, I think, to ask the Government to substitute the age of twenty-one for seventeen in this clause, but with the moderation which I always display in your Lordships' House I am only asking for eighteen.
I shall no doubt be told that the age of seventeen has been selected because seventeen has been laid down in certain other Acts as the age of young persons. It may be desired to keep this Bill in line with other legislation on this point, but if that is the view of the Government I cannot believe that it is necessary to be quite so rigid as that. I cannot believe that the ingenuity of lawyers would not be able to devise a way out if that is the difficulty. Again, it may be said that there is not much difference between seventeen and eighteen. I think there really is a difference. That year would make quite a considerable difference. It, is well known that the effect of gambling on the character of young people is extraordinarily bad and that there has been a great increase in gambling by young people. Therefore it is important to keep them out of temptation as long as possible, especially at a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, said last night, there are so many young people without occupation and for that reason more exposed to temptation. I hope the noble Marquess will agree to accept my Amendment and so in quite a considerable way help in preventing deterioration of character in the coming generation.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 27, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("eighteen").—(Lord sanderson.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment because if it be a fact that greyhound racing is such a social menace as was described by the noble Marquess yesterday, it is clearly obvious that the people you want to exclude from that social menace are the young people. Quite apart from that fact young people are very gullible. After all, at the age of seventeen hardly a member of your Lordships' House had left his public school. It is well known that on any track, whether it be a horse racing track, a dog racing track, a motor racing track, or any other track, there are plenty of very plausible gentlemen going round inviting "pigeons," as I think they are called, to bet and to give them their money. I do think that this is a very necessary precaution. I myself would have preferred the age of twenty-one, as would my noble friend below me, but at any rate I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I should like to support this Amendment. The evidence before the Royal Commission was very emphatic that young people were gravely injured by the prevalence of betting and gambling. Those who have attended dog racing tracks have been struck by the very large number of lads and young men between the ages of sixteen and twenty-one who crowd round the bookmakers and bet with them, and there is almost unanimous evidence from the managers of clubs in the poorer parts of our great towns that the increase of betting and gambling among boys has been very great. Some prohibition of this kind up to the age of eighteen is really of great importance.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord who sits opposite and supported by the right reverend Prelate is one certainly of great importance. It is an Amendment to which I do not feel unsympathetic. The noble Lord has spoken of rigidity. It is not really a question of rigidity but of uniformity. The Amendment proposes that a book

703
maker or totalisator operator on a track shall not have any betting transaction with a person under eighteen years of age, instead of any person under seventeen years of age, as proposed in the Bill. I think your Lordships will agree that it is undesirable to have juvenile protection extending to one age for one purpose and to another age for another purpose. The Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, prohibits any betting transactions on an approved horse racecourse with young persons under seventeen years of age; and the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, defines a "child" as a person under the age of fourteen years and a "young person" as a person who has attained the age of fourteen years and is under the age of seventeen years. When one finds that for a great many purposes persons under seventeen years are being subject to special protection, it is undesirable (without very special cause) to substitute a different age for an isolated form of protection.
I know exactly what is the desire of those who suggest eighteen and hope that it will be twenty-one. It is to protect young people from the ravages which can be said to accrue to those who indulge in betting. I am not certain that any age limit would satisfy some of those people. A great many of them who are against betting in all forms would like to put the age limit higher and keep everybody off racecourses. But as the age of seventeen has been laid down in so many cases I think it would be unfortunate to change it to eighteen in this Bill. As, however, I agree so much with the object of the Amendment I certainly will not shut the door upon it. The matter can be considered, and if it is thought advisable that it should be accepted after further consideration of its merits, I will certainly mention it again on the Report stage.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBRDE: I am very glad to hear the noble Marquess's remark at the end of his speech, and my noble friend certainly will not press the Amendment now if we may have an assurance that it will be reconsidered before the Report stage. I felt that in his remarks the noble Marquess was entirely sympathetic to the Amendment and that it was only the tidiness and uniformity of Government offices which was preventing him from accepting it. But
704
we are grateful to him for that assurance, and I will ask my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: We all sympathise, I am sure, with the general idea of the Amendment, but I would like to point out that under the standing orders of the Greyhound Racing Totalisator Control Board it is provided that a member on whose racecourse a totalisator is in operation shall have no transaction by means of the totalisator with a person apparently under the age of seventeen, and also I would point out that if it is brought to the notice of the National Greyhound Racing Club that any betting with juveniles takes place on a licensed track, the licence issued to such track may be withdrawn entirely and immediately. That is really why I was asking yesterday to have some kind of control, I do not say necessarily in that particular manner, but unless you get control over all the tracks it will be extremely difficult to carry out the Act.
LORD RHAYADER: May I express the hope that the noble Marquess will not be too much influenced by a desire to maintain uniformity? I am afraid that the extension of the totalisator to greyhound racing will inevitably mean a considerable extension of betting, and therefore if it is a case of making a new rule, when all the evidence points to the fact that boys under the age of eighteen years, with very few opportunities at the present time for finding work, go to these greyhound race meetings in very large numbers, it appears to me that it is most desirable in their interests and in the interests of the nation to put the age as high as you reasonably can. I do not think anybody will contend that eighteen is too high to fix the age at which the provision of betting facilities should begin. If uniformity is desirable I should suggest that opportunity should on some future occasion be taken to amend the Acts previously passed.
LORD SANDERSON: I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his undertaking to reconsider the matter before the Report stage. I should also like to apologise to him and to the House for using a wrong word: I used the word "rigid" when of course "uniform"

705
was what I meant. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(5) Any person who causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure any young person under the age of seventeen to convey or deliver any slip, note or message, verbal or written, which relates to any bet or wager, or to convey or deliver any information, advice or money for the purpose of making or procuring the making of any bet or wager, or which relates to any bet or wager already made, to any bookmaker, and any bookmaker who accepts from a young person any such slip, note, message, information, advice or money, shall each be guilty of an offence."
The noble Lord said: My object in patting down this somewhat long Amendment is to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting which will be found in paragraph 379 on page 112 of their Report, which reads:
"Police witnesses and other witnesses suggested the application to England of the Betting (Juvenile Messengers) (Scotland) Act, 1928, which prohibits the use of persons under sixteen years of age in the conveyance of bets. We have reason to believe that many boakmakers in England would welcome a prohibition of the employment of child messengers by backers.
"We consider that the Scottish Act of 1928 is a useful measure. We recommend, for the sake of uniformity with our proposal in paragraph 378, that the provisions of the Act should apply to persons under seventeen, instead of sixteen years of age. The provisions of the Act, thus amended, should apply to England and Wales as well as to Scotland."
I think that this Amendment really speaks for itself. I believe that the Act works quite well in Scotland. Of course there must be many cases in which child messengers succeed in conveying messages without being detected. They are not all so simple as the messenger in a case which I recently observed reported in the Press, where a small child, the bearer of a betting slip from its mother, timidly approached a policeman on duty, and said: "Please, Sir, where can I find the bookie?" The result was inquiries by the policeman as to who had sent the child, which resulted in the prosecution of the parent. I rather think that the mother got off with an admonition.
I may be told by the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill that this Amend-
706
ment was inapplicable as it applies mainly to the carrying of messages off the track; but it seems to me that it might quite well apply to a person sending a message by a small boy to a bookmaker within the premises of the track. People would know that they would find him there and they might quite well send a message. With those words I leave the matter in the hands of the Committee. I feel that we are all at one in desiring to save children from being mixed up in this business more than can be helped. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, because it really is one which deals more, as he said himself, with off-the-course betting. I am also given to understand that the use of young persons in the conveyance of betting slips is not believed to be a problem on the track, so I hope the noble Lord will accept what I say, that this really is a matter which is included in off-the-course betting, and I hope he will feel that the Amendment is really not applicable here. Off-the-course betting is not included in this Bill: this is a smaller measure than that, and I do feel that this particular provision is so closely associated with off-the-course betting, that it is really not relevant to the Bill which is now before your Lordships.
LORD POLWARTH: After that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
".It shall be unlawful for any bookmaker or commission agent to employ in any business connected with betting any person under the age of eighteen."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of somewhat the same character as the last two Amendments which we have discussed. I am rather surprised that those responsible for the Bill have not dealt with this matter, which was of course before the Royal Commission and upon which the Royal Commission made a definite recommendation. If it is a

707
bad thing for children under seventeen to have anything to do with betting, it is surely a bad thing for them to be employed by bookmakers and to be right in the midst of the betting atmosphere. The noble Marquess may say that this is ruled out on the ground that it comes under off-the-course betting, but I do not think that it can quite be dismissed in that way, because trying to prevent bookmakers employing young people under seventeen or eighteen years of age on the course is rather different from the other cases which we have had. I therefore hope that the Government will consider the Amendment and accept it, and so make it illegal for bookmakers to employ children under the age of eighteen. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sanderson.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the same arguments apply to this Amendment as to the previous Amendments. The question of differentiating between the ages of seventeen and eighteen is a very difficult matter, as the noble Lord knows quite well. I have pointed out that there are many Acts of Parliament which have taken seventeen as the particular age. As I have said on previous Amendments, this is a matter which is being carefully considered, but it is surrounded with great difficulty. If the noble Lord will allow me to leave it at that, I will ask him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SANDERSON: Of course it rather depends on the decision of the noble Marquess on the other Amendments. If he cannot go beyond seventeen with regard to young persons generally, I would of course accept seventeen in relation to this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
"It shall be unlawful to admit any child under the age of fourteen (or such age as may from time to time be fixed at which a parent ceases to be under an obligation to cause him to attend school) to any track, as defined in the Bill, where betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator is carried on."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like to repeat what
708
I stated to a very small number of your Lordships at a very late hour last night, that I would never have presumed to move this Amendment as it were on my own account. I am not so presumptuous as to suppose that my interest in the welfare of children and young people is greater than that of any other member of your Lordships' House. I am certain that every one of us is anxious to safeguard, as far as possible, the young people of to-day from the many and grave dangers and temptations which beset them, no matter to what class of life they belong. But in moving this Amendment I am not speaking only on my own behalf, but on behalf of the Scottish National Council of Juvenile Organisations, of which I have the honour to be Chairman. That body has on it representatives of all the organisations which take a leading part in promoting the welfare of young people—scouts, guides, Y.M.C.A. and many similar organisations —and also members representing educational and other interests. That body has for many years been watching and considering the dangers and bad effects of betting and gambling upon young people. In fact, as they say in their resolution, for the last ten years they have been considering many aspects of this question and wondering what can be done to deal with it. They are grateful for many provisions of this Bill which are in accordance with the resolutions that they passed, but they are urging very strongly that no child below the school age should be allowed to he present on any race track.
We have a precedent for this. Children are not allowed to enter a public house, and no objection is taken to that. As a matter of fact it is not, I believe, the practice for children to attend a race meeting. I made it my business to visit a track last Monday night in the City of Edinburgh. I had heard about the happy family parties which frequented such gatherings, but the whole crowd—it was a comparatively small one—was made up of very seedy looking youths, about eighteen to twenty years of age, either unemployed or unemployable. There were very few women there, two or three girls, and hardly any middle-aged men. I do not think we wish that children so early in life should be

709
initiated into all that unfortunately takes place on these race tracks. I am, of course, only speaking of children of school age. School children have plenty to occupy and engross their minds without having them distracted by racing. They have, or ought to have, their own organised games and interests, and they will be all the better if they are not allowed to frequent these racing tracks. I very much hope that the Government will give really serious consideration to this matter and will recognise that it is the universal desire so far as I have been able to ascertain of persons interested in the welfare of children that they should be saved from the dangers and evils that are so unfortunately connected with these racing tracks. I beg to move this Amendment as earnestly as I possibly can, and I appeal to noble Lords who have the interests of the young at heart to support this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Polwarth.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Naturally none of us would wish to see children under fourteen going to these race meetings. Personally I do not bet, and I am not interested from that point of view, but the noble Lord himself has told us that he went to one meeting and could not see any school children there. He has mentioned various pious resolutions from societies in Scotland, but not one has stated that it saw any children under fourteen years of age on these race tracks. If they are not attending these race tracks there is no offence, and I cannot see the use of cramming this Bill with what I might almost call a bogus Amendment, which does not function and is not needed. It is unnecessary to include it in the Bill. The noble Lord took a great deal of trouble to say that it is for school children only. The main thing is that these meetings are held at night. Publicly controlled courses do not want these children there, and on the non-controlled courses, one of which the noble Lord attended, they do not seem to be present.
LORD POLWARTH: I do not know whether it was controlled or not.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I do, because it was reported that the noble Lord went there. These races, as I have said, are
710
held at night, and the children ought to be in bed; in the day they are at school. Although I am in sympathy with the object of the noble Lord I think his Amendment is unnecessary.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: The speech of the noble Duke to which we have just listened is really very strongly in favour of the Amendment. He says he does not wish children to attend racing tracks, that the Greyhound Racing Association does not wish them to go there, and, that, it is bad for them to attend. In those circumstances why not pass the Amendment? After all greyhound racing does take place on Saturday afternoons, when children can go. We are agreed that it is undesirable they should attend these tracks, and therefore why not pass this Amendment?
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: In the discussion it seems to have been assumed that this Amendment will only apply to greyhound racing tracks, but if you look at the definition clause at the end of the Bill, Clause 18, you will see that "'track' means premises on which races of any description, athletic sports or other sporting events take place." I do not think the mover of the Amendment really means to exclude children from places where other sports are taking place, even if a bookmaker did happen to be present, nor, from my own experience, do I think it is at all necessary to exclude children from a field in which point-to-point racing is taking place, merely because a bookmaker may happen to be in another part of the field. I think the Amendment goes farther than is necessary in the interest which the noble Lord has at heart.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not think that any one will disagree with the object which the noble Lord has in view. We know quite well that it is not in the interests of a child's physical health that it should attend a track for several hours at night, and in all weathers, and it is hardly a proper part of its education that it should be introduced to the paraphernalia of betting at an early age. The Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting received a good deal of evidence about the presence of children and young persons at greyhound

711
tracks. The problem appears to be more acute in Scotland than it is in England. I should, however, like to point out the limits to the extent of this problem. In the first place it was established before the Royal Commission that the great majority of the children at dog tracks attend under the charge of parents and adults. Unaccompanied children are kept out of most tracks, mainly of course because they are a nuisance to the management, who do not desire that up-attended children should be wandering about a racecourse.
In the second place the Bill proposes in Clause 14 that it should be an offence to bet with persons under seventeen, either by means of bookmaking or by means of the totalisator. In substance, therefore, the question before the House is whether children who are under the charge of adults and who will not be allowed to engage in betting should be excluded from tracks licensed for betting. We take the view that the prohibition of betting with young persons under seventeen goes a long way to deal with the mischiefs of the attendance of young persons at these tracks; but if the House feels strongly that the provisions in the Bill are not sufficient we will consider the matter further on Report. One matter which would have to be considered further is whether it would not make administration difficult to have children under fourteen kept out of the tracks, young persons from fourteen to seventeen admitted but not allowed to bet, and persons over seventeen admitted and allowed to bet, On the whole, I would ask the House to rely on the existing provisions in the Bill prohibiting betting with persons under seventeen to check the evils which admittedly exist.
LORD POLWARTH: In view of the statement of the noble Marquess I think the Committee will probably desire me to withdraw the Amendment. With reference to what the noble Marquess said regarding unaccompanied children, there is nothing at present to prevent the owners of an impecunious racecourse—and yesterday we were told that many were impecunious—from admitting unaccompanied children for the sake of the money they could bring in. There is the further danger which might arise that
712
special attractions might possibly be offered by unprincipled owners of tracks in order to bring children in and get the gate money which otherwise they would lose. But, as the Government have promised to reconsider the matter of the admission of children and young people, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15:
Revocation of licences.
15.—(1) A licensing authority may at any time, after giving to the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard, revoke a, licence in respect of a track in their licensing area—

(a) if they are satisfied that the track has been conducted in a disorderly manner or so as to cause a nuisance; or

(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

(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, if they revoke a licence, shall forthwith send notice of the revocation by post to the holder of the licence.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a), to insert:
"(b) if without their approval, to he given after such notice as they deem proper, the accommodation for spectators on the track as stated in the notice under subsection (2) of Section five of this Act has been substantially increased, or the exits from the track as described in that notice have been materially altered, and they are satisfied that undue congestion of traffic or serious prejudice to the preservation of law and order has resulted therefrom; or"
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on the Government Amendment to Clause 5, page 2, line 31. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 9, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Feversharm.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 18, after ("licence") insert ("or, where the holder is a corporate body, any director or the manager thereof").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment in paragraph (c) 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: The noble Marquess in the case of Clause 6, subsection (1) (b), regarding an application for a licence, was unable to accept similar words applying to that very odd clause, and that clause has not got, as the Bill stands, any possibility of appeal. In this case, which is the case of the revocation of a licence, there is an appeal allowed. Therefore, there is the discretion not only of the licensing authority but also, in necessary cases, of the Quarter Sessions. In these circumstances I do not move the Amendment.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to insert "or of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty." The noble Lord said: The Government accepted similar words on Clause 6. I understand that they will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 21, after ("track") insert the said words.—(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "and to the chief officer of Police." The noble Earl said: This Amendment provides that where a licensing authority has revoked a licence it shall send notice of such revocation to the chief officer of Police, in addition to the holder of the licence as proposed by the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Amendment and interpretation of Racecourse Betting Act,1928]:
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to insert the following new subsection:
714
"(4) The purposes for which the Racecourse Betting Control Board, acting under paragraph (6) of Section three of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, may, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Secretary of State, apply moneys comprised in the totalisator fund shall include purposes conducive to the advancement and encouragement of veterinary science and education."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is that veterinary science and education may be included among the purposes to which the profits of the totalisator under the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, may be devoted. At present these purposes are limited by that Act to "purposes conducive to the improvement of breeds of horses or the sport of horse racing." I should have thought that the advance of veterinary science and education would have been advantageous to the breeding of horses, but we have been advised that there is at all events considerable doubt upon that point. I am sure your Lordships will agree that there is no more suitable object to be found for the spending of money than that.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Government will be pleased to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following new clause.
Saving for totalisator and bookmaking at motor race meetings licensed by Royal Automobile Club.
".—(1) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall apply to betting on the results of motor races run on a motor racing track licensed by the Royal Automobile Club and nothing in this Act or any other enactment or rule of law shall prevent the provision of betting facilities for the purpose only of betting on the results Qf such motor races by the setting up and operation of a totalisator or by bookmaking carried on by bookmakers by leave of the lessees of the track and under such conditions as they may impose.
(2) On any motor racing track where a totalisator is operated the conditions under which it may be operated shall include a condition that the person by whom the totalisator is operated shall distribute or cause to be distributed the whole of the

715
moneys staked on any race or races by means of the totalisator among the persons winning bets made by means of the totalisator on that race or those races after deducting or causing to be deducted not more than ten per cent, of such moneys.
(3) If and whenever leave is given by the lessees of any motor racing track for the provision of betting facilities on any such motor racing track space shall be made available on the track for bookmakers to carry on bookmaking in connection with the motor races run on the track subject to such conditions for securing good behaviour as the said lessees may think fit to impose and the charge made to any bookmaker for admission to the track or a specified portion thereof to carry on bookmaking shall not be higher than the charge made in like circumstances to any other bookmaker for that purpose."
The noble Duke said: This Amendment, which I move on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cottenham, is very much the same as the new clause after Clause 18, an Amendment down in my own name. With the leave of the House I will take them together. I have a short note with regard to the matter by the Secretary of the Aero Club, and it applies to both these Amendments. Therefore I will read it:
"The object of this clause is to keep aerodromes and aeroplane races outside the scope of Part I of the Bill. The definition of 'track' in Clause 18, page 16, line 16, is as follows: '"track" means premises on which races of any description, athletic sports or other sporting events take place'; and the effect of the preceding Clauses 1 to 16 is to prohibit betting on a track except under a licence granted by the local authority, and subject to all the conditions laid down in those clauses. The Royal Aero Club are the representative body controlling all aeroplane races, and in the past it has been their practice to permit betting on the races at the aerodromes. The facilities so provided have been much appreciated by supporters who come to watch the start or finish of racing, and no complaint has ever been made that any other control for the betting is required than that provided by the Club. With regard to the totalisator it may be convenient to make provision for this as an alternative to bookmaking, and clubs are advised that unless some provision is made in the Bill giving sanction for the totalisator the decisions of the Courts under the Betting Acts would prevent a totalisator being operated at an aerodrome."
Exactly the same thing applies to Brook-lands, and in each case the manufacturers concerned are in favour of reasonable betting under proper control. I shall not say any more than that because I do not want to delay the Committee.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17, insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment which the noble Duke has moved in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cottenham, and the similar Amendment which comes in his own name later on, are really more far-reaching than the speech of the noble Duke would lead us to suppose. The Bill sets up an elaborate scheme for regulating the provision of betting facilities on the course, and as the Bill is drafted the system of regulation is to be applied to all tracks alike on which races of any description, athletic sports or other sporting events take place. The effect of this Amendment would be to exempt altogether from the scheme of control prescribed in the Bill tracks on which motor races are run if the tracks are licensed by the Royal Automobile Club. There would be no limit to the number of days on which betting facilities could be provided on such tracks, although horse racing, dog racing and all forms of athletic sports would remain subject to a statutory annual maximum number of betting days. It would be open to the Royal Automobile Club to license as many motor racing tracks as they thought fit, and there would be nothing to prevent the management of such tracks from conducting or allowing betting facilities thereon every day of the week.
One of the main objects of the Bill is to impose such restrictions as are thought to be reasonably necessary in the public interest on the provision of organised facilities for continuous gambling, and if this Amendment were accepted one of the main purposes of the Bill would be defeated. The Amendment would put it in the power of a private and unofficial body such as the Royal Automobile Club to decide the extent to which gambling facilities on certain types of track should be allowed, and in the Government's view this question of public policy is a matter for the decision of some responsible public body, acting under the guidance of general principles laid down by Parliament. I think I have shown to your Lordships that this Amendment will affect one of the main objects of the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will join with the Government in resisting it.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I would remind the noble Marquess that there is a good deal of difference between dog racing tracks and the Royal Aero Club and the Royal Automobile Club, which exist to a very great extent to bring out new machines and to encourage a great trade; and where meetings are held, not for the purpose of betting, but for the purpose I have mentioned, there is a great deal of difference between such a track and a dog racing track, which exists solely and only, as far as I can make out, for the purpose of betting.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Duke if it has occurred to him that a great many people object to betting on aeroplane races because it may lead to loss of life, and that the same thing also applies to motor racing? Many of us look upon it as very objectionable to have gambling in any form connected with motor racing or air racing.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: That may be so, but both official bodies have suggested there should be betting.
LORD STRABOLGI: With great respect to the noble Duke I have had a good deal to do with both bodies, especially with the Royal Aero Club, and while I appreciate all they have done for sport, I am both surprised and disappointed to hear they have officially put forward a plea for betting on aeroplane racing in this country.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Illegality of lotteries]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Before this clause is passed I should be glad if the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill would describe to the House what he means by a lottery, as the words in the clause, "all lotteries," seem to me to be rather sweeping. It is just as well that the public should know not only what constitutes an offence such as we find in this Bill, but also what constitutes a lottery. My reason for asking this is that ignorance on this point may lead virtuous people astray and involve them in a heavy fine and imprisonment. For instance, all members of your Lordships' House have received a notice of a ballot, of which apparently the Lord Chancellor is the promoter. They have been asked to sub-
718
scribe 7s. 6d. each for the chance of obtaining a prize in the shape of a seat for the ceremony of Trooping the Colour on June 4. All the money subscribed is to go to expenses. The money is to be enclosed with the application, and in no circumstances will the money be returned, although it is not known whether the amount received will be sufficient to pay for the erection of the stands or whether it will be in excess of the amount required. Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell me in what way this so-called ballot differs from a lottery. If it does not, I feel that I should warn a certain high dignitary of this House as well as the Secretary to the War Office that lotteries promoted for good or national objects in this country are not always looked upon favourably by the authorities, and that the Police, while they are active in these days, sometimes exceed their instructions.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Duke has asked me a specific question as to what is a definition of a lottery. I should have thought that the noble Duke could have enlightened your Lordships on that point and could have given us a specific definition himself, but I have now had placed in my hands a definition of a lottery which is: "A scheme for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance."
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: That, I understand, is the same as a ballot.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Offences in connection with lotteries.
20.—(1) Subject to the provisions of his section, every person who in connection with any lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted either in Great Britain or elsewhere—

(a) prints any tickets for use in the lottery; or

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "lottery," to insert "except as regards printing elsewhere." The noble Duke said: The purpose of this Amendment, if the Government think it necessary, is that a printer should not be prevented from printing tickets for foreign lotteries or sweepstakes which, to all appearances, are not intended for circulation in Great Britain and which are not likely to offend against our laws. It would certainly be a restriction on a perfectly legitimate

719
trade, in which our printers excel, if we were to put difficulties in their way as has been suggested. Quite possibly this is dealt with under subsection (2), and if the noble Marquess will assure me that this point is covered, then I will withdraw this Amendment. It is quite a friendly Amendment, and I am not quite certain whether it does not go further than was intended.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 39, after ("lottery") insert ("except as regards printing elsewhere").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am not quite clear as to the noble Duke's intention, but I presume he means that the printing of tickets outside Great Britain should not be an offence. If this is the object he has in mind the Amendment is quite unnecessary, as all the offences under Clause 20 must be committed in Great Britain.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: The printing has got to be done before the offence is committed. Supposing there was a sweepstake in some foreign country: there is no reason why our printers should not print the tickets so long as they are honest people and it is not against the law in this country. I am not quite certain whether it is covered in a later Amendment I am going to press.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I ask the noble Marquess whether foreign premium bonds which might be printed in this country for foreign Governments would not come under this Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I will make inquiries.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If the noble Marquess makes inquiries before Report I shall be content.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Exemption of small lotteries incidental to certain entertainments.
21.—(1) A lottery promoted as an incident of an entertainment to which this section applies shall be deemed not to be an unlawful lottery, but the conditions specified in the next succeeding subsection shall be observed in connection with the promotion and conduct of the lottery, and, if any of those conditions is broken, every person con-
720
cerned in the promotion or conduct of the lottery shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge.
(2) The conditions referred to in the preceding subsection are that—

(a) the whole proceeds of the entertainment (including the proceeds of the lottery) after deducting all expenses, not being expenses incurred in connection with the lottery, shall be devoted to purposes other than private gain;

(c) tickets or chances in the lottery shall not be sold or issued, nor shall the result of the lottery be declared, except on the premises on which the entertainment takes place and during the progress of the entertainment; and

(3) The entertainments to which this section applies are bazaars, sales of work, fetes and other entertainments of a similar character, whether limited to one day or extending over two or more days.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out "not being expenses incurred in connection with the lottery." The noble Duke said: The whole of this subsection is rather involved, but I assume that it means there are to be no expenses incurred in connection with the lottery, and that otherwise such expenses might be wrongfully buried in the proceeds of the entertainment. But I would point out that tickets have to be printed, and therefore some expenses must go towards lotteries. Sometimes it is the custom to purchase an article at a cheap rate and sell it at an enhanced price for the benefit of the bazaar or entertainment. I hope, for this reason, the words to which I object will be omitted as being quite unnecessary in small transactions of this kind.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 25, leave out "not being expenses incurred in connection with the lottery").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The existing provisions in the Bill are to the effect that in the case of those small lotteries, promoted as an incident to a bazaar or sale of work, which are to be made legal, the whole proceeds must be devoted to purposes other than private gain and that no deduction must be made for expenses in running the lotteries. The noble Duke's Amendment would allow expenses to be deducted. The provision that no expenses must be charged for

721
the promotion of the lottery, as your Lordships will see, is the main safeguard to ensure that the exemption operates only in favour of those harmless raffles and things of that sort at charity bazaars and the like for which it is intended. If private gain is allowed to enter, under colour of expenses or otherwise, then the exemption will attract those individuals who make a living by lottery promotion, whose activities the noble Duke from his personal experience deplored in his Second Reading speech, and all manner of undesirable schemes will be liable to be promoted.
The noble Duke, I am sure, sees the great difficulty in which we are placed. We have to look round the whole question and see that we do not, by some apparently harmless words incorporated in an Amendment, open the door for something which he himself desires to prohibit just as much as we do. No expenses are necessary in the promotion of bazaar raffles and undertakings of that description. I would certainly ask the Committee to reject this Amendment and would give them an undertaking that the Government would introduce an Amendment on the Report stage which would allow the expenses incurred in the printing of tickets for bazaar raffles to be admitted. That seems to me the only possible legitimate expense which can be incurred with a raffle of this description. This Amendment, which I am foreshadowing, would, therefore, bring the scheme for bazaar lotteries into closer line with the scheme for club lotteries which comes later on in the Bill. I hope, therefore, the noble Duke will not press his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I only meant printing and stationery.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to omit all words down to and including "except" in paragraph (c) in subsection (2) and to insert "the result of the lottery shall be declared." The noble Duke said: My Amendment suggests that the words from "tickets" to "except" inclusive should be deleted and the words "the result of the lottery shall be declared" inserted in their place. It does seem rather absurd that for such small entertainments or bazaars, to which alone this clause refers, tickets should be
722
allowed to be sold only on the premises. It surely is in your Lordships' knowledge that it is a constant practice for people to undertake to sell a book beforehand, and in small communities it may be the only way of raising sufficient money for the purpose of the bazaar or entertainment. As I have said, since it only refers to small entertainments, it seems to be a rather hard and unnecessary provision. People may adjourn to dinner from a bazaar and may sell some tickets at a neighbouring house perfectly innocently. It seems absurd not to allow such a thing to be done. It is also hard that no one should be allowed to sell tickets round a neighbourhood for small affairs.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 30, leave out from ("(c)" to the first ("on") in line 32 and insert ("the result of the lottery shall be declared)".—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Bill proposes that tickets in a small lottery promoted at bazaars and sales of work of the type allowed under Clause 21 shall only be issued and sold at the bazaar or sale of work. The noble Duke proposes that this requirement should be deleted. The result would be that the lottery could become a public lottery in which tickets could be hawked from door to door or sold in the streets without any restriction whatsoever, and the professional lottery promoter could evade the general prohibition of large-scale lotteries by the simple expedient of conducting his lottery as an incident of a bazaar which he had organised specially for this purpose. The connection with the bazaar would be simply that the drawing was arranged to take place there. The noble Duke's proposal, especially if coupled with his earlier proposal that expenses should be allowed in the conduct of those lotteries, would mean that large public lotteries could be promoted under the guise of this exemption framed in favour of small schemes such as raffles.
As your Lordships are aware, the Government, having decided that large lotteries are undesirable, cannot agree to any proposal which would have the result of enabling large schemes to be promoted under cover of the exemptions for club sweepstakes and bazaar raffles. Even under the noble Duke's own scheme it

723
would be ridiculous that large lotteries should be promoted by virtue of Clause 21 as amended by him when, in a later new clause, he is proposing that large lotteries should only be promoted by the State or under licence of the Secretary of State subject to rigid conditions. If, as the Government propose, the sale of tickets in the exempted lotteries under Clause 21 is confined to the bazaar or sale of work in connection with which the lottery is promoted, the other requirements can be reduced to a minimum. This is highly desirable, since there are manifest objections to any scheme under which the raffling of articles left unsold at a bazaar should be subject to a long catalogue of conditions. In these circumstances I think your Lordships will agree that this Amendment cannot be accepted.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I would suggest that it is surely not difficult to find some machinery to prevent it developing into what the noble Marquess calls a national lottery or something of that sort. I am only thinking of some small church bazaar or village bazaar. It is always for something in kind and never for any valuable prize. It would be easy to say that the value should not be more than a certain sum. I think the Government might think out something which would cover the point.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It seems to me that there is something false in the Government's argument. It is suggested that it should be perfectly legal to have a small lottery in the rectory garden and illegal to have a slightly larger one somewhere else. There is no sound principle in it—especially when one remembers that quite unconsciously the small lottery is often far more dishonestly run than the larger one. I hope the Government will consider this rather more carefully. I have one particular lottery in mind which has raised very large sums for charity with the minimum of expense and was only stopped by the action of a common informer some three or four years ago. It seems a pity that such a lottery should not be allowed to go on. In that particular case it was run in connection with a three days' fête and tickets were sold all over the South of England. I hope the Government will consider the ethics of the case, if I may so put it, and will allow the larger lottery as well as the
724
small one, under proper safeguards that there should be no private profit.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Earl has made a speech which seems to imply that the officials of the Home Office have taken no steps to consider this matter carefully. By far the easiest course we could pursue would be to prohibit raffles altogether, and I am sure that would receive support from many members of your Lordships' House; but taking into account the fact that the public do not believe that raffles are harmful we have spent a good deal of time in endeavouring to see that raffles are made as harmless as possible. I think the noble Earl should appreciate—I think the noble Duke does appreciate—that we have put forward proposals in quite good faith for dealing with this matter. Immense schemes might be put forward if an Amendment which appears to be of a very harmless character is inserted in the Bill. I would venture to ask for the noble Earl's commiseration rather than his criticism in dealing with a matter which bristles with difficulties. I would invite the noble Earl to help us instead of suggesting that the officials of the Home Office are so lax that they have not taken proper trouble to consider this subject.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I was only suggesting that a somewhat larger lottery might do no more harm than a small lottery.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It might perhaps meet the convenience of your Lordships if we adjourn the discussion at this point and resume our duties at 9.15.
[The sitting was suspended at five minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine o'clock.]
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (3), after "entertainments," to insert "affording scope for skill and." The noble Lord said: When we adjourned I had ringing in my ears the remarks of the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill about the great efficiency of his advisers at the Home Office, with every word of which I entirely agreed. When I move this Amendment, which is of an exploratory nature, I do not want the noble Marquess to suppose for a moment that

725
I consider that these things have been overlooked, but the unfortunate lieges outside, the simple people who find themselves on occasions quite unexpectedly prosecuted—I do not refer here to the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, but to other people who find themselves within the clutches of the law when they never expected it—are very puzzled indeed about the meaning of certain clauses of this Bill, including Clause 21. Therefore I have put down this Amendment to add the words which appear on the Order Paper to subsection (3) of this clause.
If your Lordships will look at subsection (3) as drawn you will see that it says:
"The entertainments to which this section applies are bazaars, sales of work, fêtes, and other entertainments of a similar character…"
I take the word "entertainments" to mean amusements at fêtes, sales of work, and so on, and I am going to move to insert the words "affording scope for skill and". With that addition the subsection would read:
"The entertainments to which this section applies are bazaars, sales of work, fêtes and other etnertainments affording scope for skill and or a similar character…"
It might be read into my Amendment that I was pretending that sales of work afforded scope for skill, but that is not the intention at all. As a matter of fact, any one who has organised a sale of work knows that it takes not only a great deal of skill but a great deal of tact, and that if you get through the organisation of a bazaar or anything of that kind without making a dozen mortal enemies, you are very fortunate. But leaving that aside my Amendment must be read with a later Amendment which I have proposed to the Second Schedule, to deal with the Gaming Act, 1853, which is the most extraordinary Act on the Statute Book, I believe, as regards drafting, but to which I will not refer at this moment.
My object is really to get a declaration from the Government that the fears of certain people who operate various entertainments are not well grounded, in that they will not come within the scope of the Bill and be liable to prosecution. The entertainments to which I refer are those which were familiar to many of your Lordships in your younger and perhaps happier days on village fair
726
grounds. I think the most simple and obviously the most harmless of all is the cocoanut shy. There is no money prize there; the prize is a cocoanut. I dare say the noble Marquess remembers having enjoyed himself in his younger days throwing wooden balls at cocoanuts. Is that an exercise of skill? I know that the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, has not forgotten his cocoanuts on those village fair grounds. But now we come to other forms of entertainment, where the prize is not a cocoanut but a clock or a lady's handbag. There is an entertainment known as "Aunt Sally." During the War "Aunt Sally" was the Kaiser or the Crown Prince of Germany; to-day "Aunt Sally" is the Prime Minister or Mr. Hitler or some other prominent person. A clay pipe is inserted in the month of this figure, and the lieges enjoy themselves very much throwing wooden balls and trying to break the clay pipe. When they have broken the clay pipe they get a clock or some other prize. Apparently these people are going to be liable to prosecution.
But I am going to take the matter a little further. It appears that there is an entertainment—a game—of semi-skill called the "Bombing Aeroplane." This will be of particular importance in the mind of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Air. He obviously wants to have an air-minded people and I dare say he is not averse from seeing the people playing with these means of entertainment. The aeroplane, I understand, is flown across the machine and if you are sufficiently skilful to drop its bombs inside the clock tower or the church tower or whatever it is, you gef a small prize or you get your money back. I am advised by learned counsel who advise the amusement caterers and travelling showmen and others who make their living in this way, that the Bill will still further strengthen the law against them. Indeed, I am told that the game of darts in the village inn—in which, as your Lordships will know, there is a target marked with numbers, and those frequenting the inn each have a dart and they play a game or a competition and I suppose the loser pays for the drinks, or there is a small prize, or they pool their stakes or whatever it is—may come within the provisions of this Bill.
Are these people engaging in an illegal lottery? Are they engaging in gaming? Is the Bill intended to apply to them? The noble Marquess has said that he is not dealing with off-the-course betting in this Bill, but he has already proposed to your Lordships' House, and he has successfully proposed, to exempt the pari mutuel and the football pool. I suggest that the situation is at present very complicated indeed and needs clearing up. The object, therefore, in moving this Amendment, which must be read in conjunction with my proposed Amendment to the Schedule later on, is to know whether the Government intend to leave things as they are with regard to these games of semi-skill, where a certain element of skill enters in. I am sure that not one of the occupants of the Ecclesiastical Bench in your Lordships' House nor one social reformer will ever maintain that any one has been ruined or morally damaged by these harmless games of semi-skill played or competed in for prizes usually of quite small value.
The actual words which I have put down may be not very well drafted, but then a great deal of this Bill is not very well drafted. It may be that the noble Marquess or his advisers have some better form of words, in which case I will be quite content to accept them. I only want to be perfectly certain that the harmless games that I have described, such as the "Bombing Aeroplane," "Aunt Sally," the game of darts and so on, will not create a new offence as illegal lotteries, and that people whom I am sure it is not intended by the Government to damage will not find themselves prosecuted by perhaps over-officious local authorities for unwittingly breaking the law as laid down in this Bill which is before your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 40, after ("entertainments") insert ("affording scope for skill and").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has done so with this proviso: instead of the clause being defined to apply to entertainments such as "bazaars, sales of work, fetes and other entertainments of a similar character," at which lotteries can be conducted, in his Amendment he has added to that wording with "affording scope for skill and of a similar
728
character." In moving the Amendment the noble Lord has properly said that it is not his intention to limit that Amendment to such entertainments as bazaars, sales of work and other entertainments which the noble Lord himself admits do not afford any scope for skill, but I submit that the noble Lord in moving his. Amendment has placed it in the wrong line of the clause. If his Amendment stands as he has expressed it, it will imply that the bazaars and sales of work which are to be held will be considered as entertainments of skill. The noble Lord has confined his remarks to entertainments of such a character as fairs and the places at which side shows are held, such as the "Aunt Sally" which the noble Lord quoted, and with which he took for granted I was familiar, and cocoanut shies.
I would point out to the noble Lord that one of the conditions prescribed in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is that the proceeds of the entertainment shall be devoted to purposes other than private gain, and many of the side shows to which he has referred are not run on this basis. Further, in this Bill there is no restriction on such side shows as the noble Lord has made reference to. That is controlled by the Second Part of the Act of 1853, to which the noble Lord will no doubt make reference on his later Amendment to the Second Schedule, but I can assure the noble Lord, who seems to be under some misapprehension, that the scope of this Bill in no way deals with gaming, to which he attached a large portion of his remarks, and that particular type of amusement; that the Bill is restricted to gambling and betting on the premises of a racing track; and, further, that by his subsequent Amendment, to which this has reference, he would in fact be repealing the Second Part of the Act of 1853.
Therefore, I think it can be clearly understood that the side-shows to which the noble Lord opposite has made reference, such as cocoanut shies, "Aunt Sallies," and the particular amusement called houp-la, will not be restricted by the clause as it now stands, but that if this Amendment were carried, with the subsequent Amendment which the noble Lord has on the Paper, then it would control the Act of 1853, with which this Bill has no connection. On those grounds

729
I hope the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his clear and lucid explanation, and after what he has said I have no intention of pressing my Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Exemption of private lotteries.
(2) A private lottery shall be deemed not to be an unlawful lottery, but the following conditions shall be observed in connection with the promotion and conduct of the lottery, that is to say—
(d) every ticket shall bear upon the face of it a statement of the persons to whom the sale of tickets or chances by the promoters is restricted, and a statement that no prize won in the lottery shall be paid or delivered by the promoters to any person other than the person to whom the winning ticket or chance was sold by them, and no prize shall be paid or delivered except in accordance with that statement;
(e) no ticket or chance shall be issued or alloted by the promoters except by way of sale and upon receipt of the full price thereof, and no money so received by a promoter shall in any circumstances be returned;
(f) no tickets in the lottery shall be sent through the post; and
(g) before selling any tickets or chances, the promoters shall give by registered letter to the chief officer of police a notice, signed by each of them, stating the purposes for which they intend to promote the lottery and the full names and addresses of each of the promoters.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (2), after "it", to insert "the names and addresses of each of the promoters and". The noble Earl said: Paragraph (g) of Clause 22 (2) proposes that the promoters of an exempted "private lottery" shall, before selling any tickets or chances, give by registered letter to the chief officer of Police a notice signed by each of the promoters stating the purposes for which they intend to promote the lottery and the full names and address of each of the promoters. This proposal has been criticised on the ground that it subjects club lotteries to supervision by the Police and imports a new restriction to which clubs have not been subject in the past.
730
I should like to emphasise, however, that the clause in the Bill does not give the Police any power to supervise club lotteries, nor does it require that the lottery should be approved by the Police, nor does it empower the Police to invade club premises for the purpose of exercising supervision. As the Bill stands, the only circumstances in which the Police can enter club premises in which a lottery is being conducted are if they can satisfy a magistrate, by information on oath, that there is reasonable ground to suspect that the club is not complying with the conditions to be observed in connection with the promotion of an exempted lottery.
Paragraph (g) was designed for the purpose of providing machinery for preventing unlawful lotteries from being promoted surreptitiously under the guise of the exemption in favour of club lotteries. Another object was to provide machinery for enforcing the requirement that tickets in a club lottery should be sold by the promoters only to members of the club, and it is for this reason that it was proposed that the promoters should notify their names and addresses to the Police. The Government, however, realise the strength of the feeling which has been manifested against the proposal requiring clubs to notify to the Police the intention to promote a lottery. They have also been impressed by the possibility of difficulties arising in the case of a lottery promoted by a club at short notice. There is also the further consideration that notification to the Police might be taken to imply that the Police had some responsibility for the conduct of the lottery.
The Government have accordingly decided that the purpose which they had in view could be met in another way, which they think is not open to objection. The effect of this Amendment is that the name and address of each of the promoters is to be printed on the face of any ticket issued in connection with an exempted private lottery. I believe that this Amendment will provide the machinery for the purpose of facilitating enforcement of the provision that tickets in exempted private lotteries should be sold by the promoters only to members of the society or club. I hope that the Amendment will meet the criticism which was raised by Lord

731
Bayford on Second Reading, and I have at some length gone into the purpose of the Amendment in order that the noble Lord who has an Amendment to move will be satisfied with the arrangement that the Government have made.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 4, after ("it") insert ("the names and addresses of each of the promoters and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD JESSEL: My noble friend Lord Bayford is here, but this Amendment has been rather sprung upon him, and I should like to ask the noble Earl who is replying for the Government exactly what is meant by "the name and address of each of the promoters" as regards tickets. It is well known that in many clubs there are no tickets at all. I am only asking for information, for I am sure the Government have considered the matter fully. Will it be sufficient to put the name of the club and the name of the secretary, or will it be necessary to put the whole of the names of the committee or of some responsible person? Perhaps the noble Earl will give us an indication of exactly what is meant by the Government Amendment and also deal with the matter I put forward, that in the case of many of these sweepstakes on Derby lotteries no tickets are issued at all. A man goes into his club, puts his name down opposite a number, and that is all. It will be a great convenience if the noble Lord will tell us what is meant by this proposal, because there is no doubt a great deal of anxiety in the country regarding this matter.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The proposal of the Government is that the names and addresses of the promoters of the lottery should only be issued in connection with those lotteries for which the promoters have found it necessary to issue tickets. If the promoters of any lottery desire, as in the past, that no tickets shall be issued, that arrangement will in no way be changed by the Bill. It is only in those cases where it is found expedient that tickets should be issued that the Government have seen their way to ask that the name and address of the responsible person or persons should be notified to the public in order to avoid the necessity of notification to the Police. I hope that explanation will meet the question raised by the noble Lord.
LORD BAYFORD: The explanation given and the Amendment on the Paper satisfy the point I raised, and I am quite content with the arrangement.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not think the noble Earl is really familiar with the way these things are done. Has he never been to a church bazaar? Has he never been accosted by a young lady with a cushion in her hand? Has he never been asked to take a ticket for a cushion he did not want and in return receive a numbered ticket, and at the end of the evening's entertainment the prize is drawn out of a hat? You cannot have the names and addresses of the promoters of a lottery in such a case, and that is a lottery within the meaning of this Bill. Really the thing is unworkable, with great respect to the noble Earl and all his advisers.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I should like to reinforce what has been said by the noble Lord opposite. The Amendment is to insert the name and address of each of the promoters. The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that this provision virtually is confined to the village lottery. In the case of a properly conducted village lottery the promoters are the whole village. In the case of the perfectly conducted village lottery every member who is going to the fete, sale of work, or entertainment is a promoter, and by virtue of his position feels bound to take a ticket in the lottery. That is the perfect village lottery, but if each ticket is to carry all their names and addresses a Bible will be needed for the purpose.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I would point out that both the noble Lord opposite and the noble Earl who last spoke are under some misapprehension, because this clause has nothing whatever to do with the lotteries that have been quoted—that is, bazaar lotteries. Those lotteries are dealt with under a different clause. If, as I have previously said, the promoters of a lottery have in the past, for the expediency of the organisation of such lotteries, found it necessary to issue tickets, they will in future issue the same tickets with the names and addresses of the promoters of such lottery, but the references to the particular class of lottery which have just been made do not have any connection with or bearing upon the present Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: Surely, under Clause 22 (1) (a), they have. A church society or boy scouts organisation often run a bazaar in the summer time at a country house and they have just the kind of lottery I attempted to describe. However, I am sure the noble Lord will bear these things in mind for a later stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 17, at end insert ("and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved to add to paragraph (f) in subsection (2) "except to members of the society for whom the lottery is promoted." The noble Duke said: As it has already been settled that tickets can only be sold to members of a club or a society, it does seem rather absurd that tickets which have the names of individuals marked on them cannot be sent to the individuals concerned. People have to send them out, and surely they ought to have a receipt if they are living at a distance and cannot visit the premises of the society or club to which they belong. It is a matter of common sense and would do no harm.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 19, after ("post") insert ("except to members of the society for whom the lottery is promoted").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There are, I think, two reasons why the Amendment of the noble Duke could not be accepted.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: One is enough.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: As the noble Duke says one reason is enough, I will confine my remarks to the first one. The lotteries which exemptions are intended to allow are relatively small in size. It is not desired to encourage a nation-wide organisation such as the Royal Automobile Club to promote a large lottery on a national al scale, and the restriction that the post must not be used for private lotteries will, I think, help to achieve this object. It is not practicable for the Post Office to distinguish between illegal lotteries, exempted lotteries, and illegal lotteries masquerading as exempted
734
lotteries. For reasons of administration it is essential to have a clear line either that the post is not prohibited to any lottery promoter or that it is prohibited to all. I think that reason against the Amendment is sufficient to convince the noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: It is not nearly enough to convince me, but the hour is getting late and I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 19, leave out from ("post") to the end of paragraph (g).—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
Restriction, on certain prize competitions.
24.—(1) It shall be unlawful to conduct in or through any newspaper, or in connection with any trade or business or the sale of any article to the public—

(a) any competition in which prizes are offered for forecasts of the result either of a future event, or of a past event the result of which is not yet ascertained or not yet generally known;

(b) any other competition success in which does not depend to a substantial degree upon the exercise of skill.

(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence, without prejudice, however, to his liability, if any, to be proceeded against under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act relating to lotteries.
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert: "(b) any competition for which entrance fees are required." The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment because I am not satisfied with the method suggested for dealing with these competitions. I do not think that the phrase "substantial degree of skill" is sufficiently definite. What does it mean? I understand that there is no legal meaning at all. If you adopt the clause as it stands I think the result will be that things will be left much as they are with regard to these competitions. Of course there are many small competitions involving a considerable degree of real skill,

735
for which not very large prizes are offered. I think those do not do much harm and they probably give a great deal of amusement to those who enter them. On the other hand, there are competitions in which huge prizes are offered, which really are nothing more than veiled lotteries, and they are not very much veiled. Probably they are familiar to your Lordships.
There are competitions in which prizes of as much as £2,000, or £10 a week for life as an alternative, are offered. Those are very big prizes. There have even been prizes, I believe, of as much as £100,000. Such competitions are really lotteries. Then there are crossword puzzles, any number of them, with very large prizes offered. They are competitions in which there are literally millions of solutions. Mathematicians, I am told, have worked out some of them and have calculated that there are millions of different solutions. That means that people who go in for them simply have to try to guess the solution which is in the desk of the editor of the paper—a feat against which there are ten million chances to one. That is a lottery. I do not think it can be called anything else. In the earlier part of this Bill the Government have taken some very drastic measures for the prevention of lotteries, measures with which I entirely agree, but if they really mean to deal thoroughly with this question of lotteries, I think they must do something more definite than say that they are going to make legal competitions where a "substantial degree of skill" is shown.
The newspapers promoting some of these competitions to which I refer demand entrance fees, 1½d., 3d. or 6d.—6d., I believe, is the usual fee. It is out of those sixpences and threepences that the prizes are paid. The Royal Commission discovered that in a single year no less than £3,000,000 went through the Post Office in postal orders and stamps in connection with these competitions. If the newspapers can get £3,000,000 a year out of their contributors they can naturally afford to give pretty good prizes. I suggest that if the Government really want to deal with this subject in a thorough manner they should make illegal entrance fees to these competitions. That would not, of course, stop the competitions altogether, but there
736
would not be such large prizes offered, you would not have people buying dozens of papers, and they would be smaller affairs altogether. Smaller prizes would be offered and probably they would be comparatively harmless. I think that is the proper way to deal with the subject.
That is not at all a new suggestion; almost precisely the same plan was suggested by the Joint Select Committee on Lotteries which sat in 1908. I do not think there would really be much opposition from the Press if this plan were adopted. I believe that the higher-class papers would be in favour of a proposal of that kind, because at present they are obliged to continue that kind of competition owing to the competitions of what I may call the less high class of papers. I do not think there would be much opposition there, and if the Government really want a satisfactory solution of the problem, I believe that the suggestion contained in my Amendment is the best, and that it really is a satisfactory solution. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert ("(b) any competition for which entrance fees are required").—(Lord Sanderson.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Under this proposal competitions which are promoted by newspapers or trading firms would be restricted by prohibiting the charging of entrance fees instead of, as under the Bill, prohibiting those which do not contain a substantial element of skill. The noble Lord's objection to the proposal which is embodied in the Bill, an objection which he expressed in the Second Reading debate, is that he believes that "a substantial degree of skill" is not easily defined and will give a good deal of work to the lawyers. The argument which the noble Lord puts forward in favour of his Amendment is that it would deprive newspapers of the large sums of money out of which at the present moment they pay prizes. Newspapers could still have competitions with a view to increasing the sales of their papers, but as the prizes would not be provided out of the entrance fees of the people taking part in the competitions there would not be such large prizes. The Joint Select Committee of 1908 on Lotteries and Indecent Publications

737
recommended that it should be made illegal to charge any form of entrance fee, including the purchase and return of coupons for the prize competitions in newspapers and periodicals. I think, therefore, it will be seen that this is a wider recommendation than that made by Lord Sanderson, but some reference to coupons is clearly required if a wide loophole is not to be left open, since a newspaper can so arrange matters that instead of requiring entrance fees they require or encourage competitors to purchase several copies of the newspaper in question.
The Royal Commission considered the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, and pointed out that coupons cut from the newspaper are frequently used as entry forms and are a convenience to competitors and promoters. The Commission accordingly proposed that the restriction should take the form of prohibiting the promoters from receiving from competitors money or valuable things other than the return of a single coupon. The Commission found, however, that many newspapers promoted competitions in which prizes amounting to thousands of pounds were offered without entrance fees being required from competitors, and the Commission accordingly proposed that there should be the further restrictions that not more than one hundred pounds should be offered in a single prize and that the newspaper or other promoter should not knowingly accept more than one entry from each competitor. If one looks at the Press, one finds support for the Commission's view that large prizes are offered even although entrance fees are not required from competitors.
The Government found the greatest difficulty in framing any proposal on the lines suggested by the Commission because it is difficult to exclude competitions of real skill which no one desires to prohibit. The Government were therefore driven to the conclusion that the only way to legislate on the subject was by reference to the degree of skill in the competition. If a competition calls for a substantial element of skill it is far removed from those schemes which, because of the large element of chance in them, are akin to lotteries and which present many of the undesirable features of large scale lotteries. It is not believed that the newspapers will experience any diffi-
738
culty in framing competitions which comply with the law. If eases in the Courts do arise out of the interpretation of this provision they will relate to competitions in which a newspaper has been sailing very close to the wind and trying to import into a competition as large an element of chance as the law permits. In those circumstances, I think the noble Lord will see that his Amendment is not very necessary.
LORD SANDERSON: I am afraid I am not convinced by the noble Marquess. I think he has almost shown that it is necessary. He has not shown why, if he cannot adopt my Amendment, he cannot adopt the suggestion of the Royal Commission, which I think would be better still.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to leave out paragraph (b) and insert "(b) any other competition which does not afford scope for the exercise of skill." The noble Lord said: The Amendment in my name is to alter the wording of subsection (b) to "any other competition which does not afford scope for the exercise of skill." I believe those words are clearer and better, and I am not without hopes that the noble Marquess will prefer them to the words originally put in the Bill. In passing, I must say that I think it is a very great pity that this question of newspaper competitions has been interfered with at all. It is really outside the scope of the Bill, with great respect. No one has suggested that anyone has been ruined by newspaper competitions, even when they send in a sixpenny postal order as entrance fee. Indeed, newspaper competitions provide a harmless form of amusement and recreation for a great many people and if there is an element of skill in them I do not see why anyone at all should object. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert ("(b) Any other competition which does not afford scope for the exercise of skill").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has very briefly given the reasons for moving such an Amendment, which the Government consider to be one of considerable importance. I therefore think

739
it necessary to point out to your Lordships that under the existing law any competition which does not afford scope for skill is a lottery, which has been judicially defined as "a distribution of prizes by lot or chance." The Courts have taken the view that if a scheme involves an element of real skill, it is not a lottery within the meaning of the Lottery Acts. The existing position is therefore that under the guise of "competitions" schemes are promoted which are in substance indistinguishable from lotteries, though they are technically so framed and involve just sufficient of the element of skill as to escape the prohibition of lotteries.
The Bill seeks to strengthen the law in regard to these competitions and under paragraph (b) of Clause 24 a competition would not be immune unless it involved a substantial degree of skill. The effect of the Amendment would be to leave unchanged the existing law relating to competitions, except as regards forecasting competitions, which I gather the noble Lord would agree should be prohibited. The Government have no desire to interfere with competitions other than forecasting competitions, involving a substantial degree of skill, which are promoted for amusement and entertainment, but if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, and if any competition involving only the slightest degree of skill were to be allowed, I contend that Parliament would be stultifying itself if, on the one hand it prohibited large lotteries, and on the other hand framed the Bill so loosely as to afford scope for the promotion of schemes which I would point out to your Lordships present all the undesirable features of large-scale lotteries. Therefore the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord cannot be accepted.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very disappointed indeed with the noble Earl's explanation, and still more with his reasons. Here is this present Government faced, they tell us, with the greatest difficulties which ever assailed a nation, and they bring in this Bill to interfere with the perfectly harmless amusements of poor people throughout the country. They leave untouched street betting, rigging of the stock market and other things, while they descend on the people
740
who send in a sixpenny postal order and go in for competitions in which there is some skill. I am sorry that they should waste the time of the House with such pettifogging legislation.
LORD JESSEL: I would like to say that I think the noble Lord opposite is a little inconsequential. We heard a good deal of denunciation of the principle of betting and so forth, and he wanted to increase the number of days of racing and yet went into the Lobby against it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"In this section the expression 'trade or business' shall not be deemed to include the business of a bookmaker as defined in Part I of this Act or the business of conducting pool betting or pari mutuel betting."
The noble Viscount said: I do not propose to move this Amendment having regard to the following Amendment in the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, but when that is moved I wish to make some observations.
THE EARL OF FEVER SHAM THE EARL OF FEVER SHAM moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that nothing in this subsection with respect to the conducting of competitions in connection with a trade or business shall apply in relation to pari mutuel or pool betting operations carried on by a person whose only trade or business is that of a bookmaker as defined in Part I of this Act."
The noble Earl said: The Committee yesterday accepted a new form of Clause 3, which was proposed by the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill for the purpose of implementing his undertaking that the Bill would be amended so as to allow office pari mutuel betting on football matches and on horse races to be carried on in the form in which they are at present legally conducted. There is nothing in the new form of Clause 3 which would prevent such pari mutuel betting on football matches and on horse races from being carried on by bookmakers in their office; but it is possible that such forms of betting might be prohibited by Clause 24, which prohibits all forecasting competitions conducted "in or through any newspaper or in connection with any trade or business or the sale of any article

741
to the public". Football combination betting would appear to be a forecasting competition within the meaning of paragraph (a) of Clause 24 and is prohibited by that clause if it is conducted "in connection with any trade or business". Football pool competitions are a department or branch of the business of a bookmaker, and it is possible that the Courts would hold that they are conducted "in connection therewith". The object of the present Amendment is to remove all doubts, and it expressly provides that the prohibition against forecasting competitions in Clause 24 shall not apply to pari mutuel or pool betting operations carried on by a person whose only trade or business is that of a bookmaker as defined in Clause 18 of the Bill. Lord Bertie put down an Amendment on the Order Paper with the same object as that of the present Amendment, and it is hoped that your Lordships will accept this Amendment in view of the Amendment which the noble Viscount had intended to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 17, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Fevershom.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The interests on whose behalf I speak are much obliged to the noble Earl for his Amendment, but a doubt has arisen, and it is this. It is not quite clear that the definition of a bookmaker which appears on page 15 of the Bill will include a person whose only trade is that of conducting pool betting, and for that reason the interests concerned would prefer to have added to the Government Amendment the last few words of my Amendment—namely, "or the business of conducting pool betting or pari mutuel betting." I do not propose to move an Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment this evening, but I should be grateful to the noble Earl if he would consult his advisers to see whether such words are necessary, or whether a person who only carries on the business of pool betting is considered a bookmaker.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section a corporate body established before the passing of this Act for a charitable purpose may conduct for any such purpose any competition in which
742
success depends partly upon the exercise of skill (other than a competition such as is referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section) in respect of which such corporate body shall have submitted to the chief officer of police of the area in which their principal office is situate a copy of the rules and conditions of the competition together with the opinion of counsel that success in the competition depends to a substantial degree upon the exercise of skill and the chief officer of police shall not within fourteen days after such submission have intimated his disagreement with such opinion."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I would say that we are very anxious to preserve for hospitals this competition source of revenue which seems to be threatened under the provisions of this clause. The ambiguous word "substantial" is introduced in defining the amount of skill required to keep a competition within the law, and the Amendment provides for a decision as to the legality of competitions run by charitable bodies before a charity concerned has incurred the expense of launching the competition. It is very undesirable that voluntary workers endeavouring to raise funds for a charity should be open to prosecution and penalties when they are acting in accordance with the best legal advice obtainable, and it is equally undesirable that the charity for which they are acting should incur the risk of losing several thousands of pounds which may have been spent on printing and advertising. Unless the Amendment, or some other provision on similar lines, is embodied in the Bill, it will mean that charitable bodies must either face these risks or forego an important source of revenue. The British Charities Association have run competitions for ten years. Last year they distributed £21,000 to the hospitals, which brought their total distributions to over 900 hospitals up to about a quarter of a million pounds. Their competitions have usually been part skill and part chance, but not one of them has, ever been challenged in the Courts.
It would be impossible to run a competition entirely dependent upon skill if you were going to allot prizes, because you cannot define skill down to, say, a one hundred-thousandth part, and that would be necessary when you have over one hundred thousand competitors. There is bound to be a considerable element of chance, but the competitor

743
usually thinks that his skill is a more important factor than it really is, and if it is the moral aspect that the Bill is dealing with, this is important. Prize competitions for charity are both popular and harmless and charities can ill afford at the present moment to be deprived of this source of income. The position of a hospital or other charitable body running a competition after the passing of this Bill, if unamended, would be that they would run the risk of an action to show whether the skill element was substantial or not. If the competition had started, this action might come at a critical time and cause loss to the organisation, whether the skill was proved as substantial or not. As the charity depends upon the public sending in 6d. or Is. entrance money, the mere talk of litigation would spoil the chance of success. May I say with regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, that the only competitions which his Amendment would stop would be those for charity because obviously there has to be an entrance fee if any money is to come to charity. An aspect of this question that must not be lost sight of is that magistrates' views may differ very much as to what is a "substantial" amount of skill, possibly due to their holding varying views as to the morality even of a competition. Charitable bodies cannot take the risk of a gamble as to whom their case will be tried before, especially when there is no yardstick by which they can gauge the amount of skill required. This Amendment seeks to settle the matter for each competition prior to the charity starting operations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Luke.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: As your Lordships are aware, the noble Lord, Lord Luke, is the Chairman of the British Charities Association which, under his authority, has made great contributions to charities and hospitals. The noble Lord apparently accepts the principle in the Bill that competitions conducted in or through a newspaper should not he lawful unless success in them depends to a substantial degree upon the exercise of skill. His Amendment is designed for the purpose of providing machinery which would enable the
744
legality of competitions promoted by charitable bodies to be determined in advance. He proposes that such competitions should be lawful if the promoters have submitted to the chief officer of Police for the area in which the promoters' office is situated a copy of the rules and conditions of the competition, together with the opinion of counsel that success in the competition depends to a substantial degree upon the exercise of skill, and if the chief officer of Police has not within fourteen days intimated his disagreement with such opinion it is presumed that the competition is a legal one.
One can sympathise with the noble Lord in his desire that the British Charities Association should be allowed to promote competitions without any danger of criminal proceedings, but the solution which he proposes—and in fact any solution with a similar object—could not be entertained. The question whether any particular competition is or is not lawful can be determined only by the Courts. On the face of it a competition might be perfectly harmless and legitimate, but the legality of it would depend, at any rate to a certain extent, on the way in which the competition is conducted. The question can only be authoritatively determined after the event. The noble Lord's Amendment would have the effect of removing from the Courts the duty of deciding what was or was not legal, and it thus introduces a new principle into our law which could not be accepted.
Quite apart from the ground of principle, the actual scheme which is proposed by the noble Lord is open to the strongest exception. The responsibility could certainly not be placed on the Police for deciding whether or not the opinion of counsel as to the legality of any particular scheme was or was not correct. Different counsel will express different opinions in regard to the same scheme, and what is the unfortunate chief officer of Police to do when he is presented with counsel's opinion? He can only take the opinion of another counsel, and the possibilities of dispute and friction would be endless. Moreover, chief officers of Police are quite independent and exercise jurisdiction only in their own areas. The question whether a competition was to be allowed would depend upon a de-

745
cision taken by the chief constable in whose area the promoters themselves were situated, although the competition might extend to the whole country through the medium of national newspapers. The Amendment would have a further result. In this country it is open to any person to institute criminal proceedings. The effect of the Amendment would be that if one chief constable decided that a scheme for a competition did not infringe the law, it would not be open to any other person in any part of the country to test the legality of the scheme. I am afraid, therefore, it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.
LORD LUKE: I am sorry the noble Marquess, though sympathetic, is unable to make some suggestions on these lines. As a mere layman, I suggest it is better to prevent an illegal act than afterwards to detect it and fine the individual who has committed it. But this, together with the next Amendment in my name I will leave over to Report, to see if I can suggest anything that will more meet the wishes of the noble Marquess.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after Clause 24, to insert the following new clause:
Exemption for State and licensed lotteries.
—(1)Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act contained it shall be lawful for the Treasury or for any person or persons firm or body corporate licensed by the Secretary of State as hereinafter in this section provided to promote a lottery for the benefit of any charitable or national object and any lottery so promoted or licensed as aforesaid shall not be deemed unlawful.
(2) For the purposes of this section the Secretary of State shall have power to grant licences authorising the promotion of lotteries for the benefit of any charitable or national object approved by him and may attach to licences granted by him under this section such conditions as he may think fit and particularly but not exclusively provisions for—

(a) prescribing or regulating the manlier in which the lottery shall he held conducted and managed;

(b) limiting the amount which may be applied out of the money received from the sale of tickets in the lottery for paying the expenses incurred in holding the lottery;

(c) prohibiting or limiting the number of tickets in the lottery which may he issued free;

746

(d) prescribing or regulating the number of prizes which may be distributed in the lottery and the amounts of such prizes whether as specified sums or as specified percentages of the money received from the sale of tickets in the lottery or otherwise; and

(e) prescribing the persons by is hom the accounts of the lottery shall be audited."

The noble Duke said: This Amendment is important and fundamental. At the present moment we see millions of pounds being taken from this country by outside sweepstakes. The whole of my activities during the last few months, so far as they concern lotteries, have been directed to urging the Government to stop this money going to Ireland while none was being returned for our own charities or for the benefit of the Exchequer. So weakly have successive Governments dealt with this problem that it has amounted almost to connivance, with the result that an enormous number of people have found that they can purchase Irish sweepstake tickets practically with immunity, while the whole forces of the law are arrayed against them if they sell tickets for a British lottery or sweepstake intended to help the sick and suffering of this country. The Government now rightly propose to take stern measures regarding these outside sweepstakes, but in my opinion, if they do this without giving people an opportunity of purchasing tickets in a large lottery promoted in this country, they will defeat their own object, because they will have millions of people—and I am not over-stating the number—trying to evade the law. The Government may make it difficult for the Irish sweepstakes, but on the other hand, a new element of sport will be added, and it will become a kind of exciting game between the Government on the one side, and the promoters and those who buy tickets on the other, without any idea of shame about it.
It is to a great extent like drug taking. The people of Britain have been allowed to take these lottery drugs to excess, and the Government will find it impossible to stop the habit all at once. For that reason, they should treat the matter almost on medical lines, allowing a ration, possibly gradually decreasing until the habit ceases. But for this they will have to set up an organisation to run a lottery or lotteries on this side under proper control. If they do this, they can then attack those who sell

747
illegal tickets and appeal to the patriotism of the people of Britain with some hope of success. Otherwise the Government have not the slightest chance of stopping the new game of smuggling lottery tickets into England and out again. A big lottery—one might almost call it a State lottery—might be run for various charities or national objects, including, perhaps, the National Debt. The Government may rest assured at all events that people who purchase tickets are seldom much concerned with the ostensible object for which such lotteries are promoted. There are also smaller, but still large, lotteries.
I am the last person to make use of the hospitals as a tag for promoting lotteries, but undoubtedly all is not well with the finances of our hospitals. I have recently allocated large sums of money from what has been described as a lottery to 118 hospitals and similar institutions. All of them, including the great London hospitals, excepting one to which I did not send a donation, have written most grateful letters of thanks, and almost all of them have expressed the hope that I shall be able to inaugurate another scheme on similar lines for their benefit. I could read you any number of extracts, but I will only read one because I believe it is one that will carry some conviction even to those of your Lordships who do not agree in any way with me. It is written from the Treasurer's House, St. Thomas's Hospital, and reads:
"I have been informed that you have been kind enough to send £500 out of your fund to this hospital. You will, of course, receive a formal acknowledgment, but I must write one line to thank you personally for your kindness in the matter. I am afraid that the whole thing must have given you an immense amount of worry and trouble, but I do hope that you are in some degree repaid by the grateful thanks of all those who, like ourselves, have received one of your grants.—Yours ever, Arthur Stanley."
If 118 hospitals have received benefits from me and have expressed grateful thanks I should think that at least double that number of charitable medical institutions have asked for assistance, and, as I have said, practically all of them directly or indirectly asked me to voice their views as I am doing to-day. There is no reason at all why lottery subscriptions should clash with voluntary subscriptions. Lottery subscriptions are,
748
after all, voluntary subscriptions in another form and it is quite simple for them to be allocated, if necessary, to capital expenditure and research, while voluntary subscriptions go to maintenance. It has been suggested that a clause might be inserted allowing hospitals to hold lotteries for themselves, which many are anxious to do. Personally I think it would be better to have a central lottery and give a definite proportion of it for hospital purposes in order to get better control and to prevent overlapping, and that it should be run under proper auspices.
While, of course, I should be only too pleased to withdraw my new clause in favour of a clause proposed by the Government stating that they are prepared to have a State lottery right away, I feel that such a hope is quite vain, and I do not anticipate that I shall have to withdraw this clause. I do anticipate that I shall probably have to divide upon it. The way I have put it means that the Government will have time to consider this matter. Those properly interested will be able, with the Government, to draw up a scheme which can be authorised at any time under the permission given by this clause. It would enable the Government either to run a lottery themselves, which is unlikely, or to authorise definite bodies such as hospitals or a body corporate to promote a lottery. By a body corporate I mean commissioners who would be allowed to carry out the lottery themselves or authorise others to do it according to the powers conferred upon them. I think that might be the best plan. It would get the Government out of a difficulty and would to a certain extent satisfy the country.
Such a lottery would be entirely different from the smaller lotteries permitted by this Bill. It seems to me to be a happy and reasonable compromise upon which I hope the Government will agree. I think that if this were granted it would help the passing of the Bill, not only in your Lordships' House but also in another place, and would tend to prevent other efforts to do what many people want but at present are not allowed to do. If the Government are prepared to accept my general idea, I shall be prepared to withdraw my new clause in favour of a new clause of their own, or to accept such verbal alterations as they may think

749
necessary after further study. I therefore hope that the Government will not put me to the necessity of dividing on this clause; but if some clause of this sort is not accepted I confess that I shall find some difficulty in supporting the Bill as a whole. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 24 insert the said new clause.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I should like to say one very brief word in support of the Amendment moved by the noble Duke. I have already spoken twice in your Lordships' House on this subject, and therefore it is not my intention to say anything more to-night beyond the fact that I also am convinced that a national lottery in this country, for national objects, must one day come, as in France, Italy, Spain, and other countries. I am very glad to see that an Amendment similar to this is to be moved in another place. I would like warmly to support the Amendment of the noble Duke, and to say that I hope the Government will consider this point most carefully and see whether they can see their way, at any rate before the Bill passes into law, to do something on these lines, either in this House or in another place.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I hope very much that the Government will not accept this Amendment. Only last year a very important Royal Commission reported upon this particular matter. That Commission consisted of important men, none of them representative of anti-gambling societies and so on. They entered into the matter with their minds, on the whole, in favour of large public lotteries, but after hearing all the evidence and after considering the matter most carefully they came to the conclusion that these large public lotteries were undesirable. They said that the evidence showed that there was no large public demand for these lotteries at the present time, and that those who advocated such lotteries had not taken into consideration the serious objections against them and the disadvantages which attended them. Among the disadvantages which attend lotteries is the fact that they can be successful only if they call into existence a large number of agents, who make their profits through
750
the sale of tickets. The Commission state:
"We should not be prepared to recommend the setting up in this country of a system by which people can make large incomes by persuading others to buy sweepstake tickets from them."
If these lotteries are to be successful it would be quite inevitable that such a system would be set up. There is no way of avoiding it.
Again, the noble Duke has told us that he is anxious that this lottery should be in the interests of the hospitals. The way in which previously in the House the two noble Dukes have urged these great lotteries in support of hospitals is very striking, but I think it is undoubtedly true that the majority of the hospitals are not asking for these lotteries. I think it is true to go further and say that the majority of them believe that they would lose, and lose heavily, if such lotteries were started in their support. We have only to look at the Irish hospitals sweepstakes to get support for that view. The Irish hospitals are losing in ordinary subscriptions through these great public lotteries, and the actual statistics published show that it is only the smaller proportion of receipts which reach the hospitals. The majority of the receipts go into the private pockets of those who promote these lotteries. I hope therefore that the Government will not accept this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I put to the right reverend Prelate one point? I quite agree as to the undesirable features of the large lotteries that are run now, but I meant that tickets could be sold over the post office counter. With regard to the hospitals, over 200 hospitals and institutions in this country asked me for the money before I sent it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: That I quite understand, but it is quite another matter for the hospitals to say that they approve of such lotteries becoming a regular method by which they are to receive help.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: They ask for it to go on.
LORD SOMERLEYTON: May I venture to say a word and to express the hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment, which I think would be very serious in its effect, with its possi-

751
bility of jeopardising the voluntary contributions now made to hospitals. On the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to give your Lordships the amount now given to the hospitals by the system of voluntary gifts. The noble Duke who moved this Amendment told us that the hospitals had never failed to accept his gifts. I did not think for a moment that it was the duty of any hospital to refuse those gifts. It is only natural that they should accept them with gratitude to the noble donor. But that does not say at all, as the right reverend Prelate has pointed out, that they approve of the system of lotteries in any way.
I showed your Lordships on the Second Reading that the voluntary hospitals of London are now in a better position than they have been in for some time, in spite of the tremendously bad period through which we have gone. The number of hospitals which now have deficits is fewer than before; the amounts of the deficits are less than they have been in the last few years. The number of the surpluses is greater and the amount of the surpluses is greater. The fact that they received a gift with gratitude is natural enough. They can always spend more money. We all know that. Every hospital can put forward new schemes and new departments and the money can be expended. But the extraordinary thing is that in the last few years the voluntary system has kept itself up well and is in better condition now than it was before. If lotteries are permitted the effect may be to reduce the amount now given by voluntary contributions. That has been shown by the right reverend Prelate to have been the effect, in Ireland, of taking up a new system which is rather alien to our own views in this country and also alien to the intentions of the Bill as brought in by the Government. I therefore venture to hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I say one word to point out to the opponents of this Amendment that there is nothing in this which compels anybody, not even the Government, to conduct a lottery of any sort or kind? It is purely permissive in its action and, even if that is taken advantage of, the Government, and the Government alone, according to the Amendment, can impose such regulations
752
on any lottery as will ensure that it is conducted in accordance with the views of people who have expressed fears as to the troubles arising from lotteries. It does not, as I say, compel anybody to conduct a lottery. It merely gives permission to conduct a lottery if thought fit, and it seems to me that it is a very desirable part of a Bill, which deals with betting and gambling, that that particular power should be placed definitely in the hands of the Government instead of its being left to perhaps a subsequent Bill and a subsequent Government, who will place it in the hands of anybody who cares to conduct a lottery.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment which the noble Duke has proposed in the form of inserting a new clause is a very important Amendment, but I am hoping that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment and will reject it if the noble Duke goes to a Division. The noble Duke has mentioned the Irish sweepstakes. I can assure him that I personally regret that so much money has gone out of this country to Ireland from those who are encouraging the Irish sweepstake; but I am hopeful that, under the provisions which are included in this Bill, a great deal of the steps which have been taken to stop that Irish sweepstake will be unnecessary in the future.
The noble Duke, and also the Duke of Sutherland, have spoken about charities, and I hardly think there is any necessity for me to supplement what has been said by the right reverend Prelate. I happen to be chairman of two hospitals in London, and I have strenuously opposed any organised system of lotteries for the purpose of supplementing hospital finance. I am inclined to think that I have perhaps more experience of the contributions which come to hospitals than either of the noble Dukes, who apparently believe that the way to bolster up their finance is to leave them dependent upon lotteries. I think one of the matters on which we have reason to be proud in this country is the great fountain of charity that comes from all sections of the community, and it would surprise your Lordships if I could give you the figures subscribed by all sections of the community to hospitals in this country. The contributions which are received are not large contributions, such as may come

753
from lotteries, but are small contributions of sixpences, shillings and even pennies, and sometimes subscriptions in kind, because the contributor cannot afford more. I think your Lordships will realise that if any system of lotteries were established in this country to which charitable organisations would have to look for their revenue, all that fountain of charity of which we have so much reason to be proud would be dried up. I think from what we have heard that this has already happened in Ireland, and that those charitable contributions which were formerly forthcoming are now non-existent.
The Duke of Sutherland surprised me by the remarks he made to urge us to adopt lotteries, because he said they have been adopted in other countries, and I think he mentioned Spain, Italy and France. I wonder whether your Lordships would wish to change the financial condition of this country for that of any other country, or of some of those which the noble Duke mentioned. I hardly think we should enjoy the position which we occupy at the present moment if we adopted lotteries for the purpose of making our position more secure than it is at present. The main principle on which Part II of the Bill is based is that large lotteries are undesirable and should not be allowed in this country. I think your Lordships will remember that the House gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, and I think I am entitled to say that your Lordships endorsed that principle. The Government are in agreement with the conclusion of the Royal Commission that large scale lotteries, whether promoted by the State for the direct benefit of the Exchequer, or by a statutory board for charitable objects, or by individual charities under a system of permits, are socially undesirable.
As regards State lotteries, history shows that lotteries take their place among the expedients which are resorted to by Governments when other and more reputable methods of finance have failed, and it is significant that in this country lotteries were abandoned when more assured sources of income became available to the State. Lotteries appeal with special force to those in straitened circumstances, and to those whose economic position is insecure, since they hope to
754
gain financial stability by winning a prize. Lottery tickets are purchased by such individuals with money which for the sake of their well-being should have been spent otherwise. As has already been said in this debate, the Royal Commission examined at length schemes for the promotion of lotteries for charitable or national objects under licence and reached the conclusion that such schemes were both undesirable and open to the gravest practical objections. All these social objections to large lotteries apply and in addition there are most serious practical difficulties, which are analysed by the Royal Commission. I feel that in all the circumstances to go back to a system which has been rejected by every Royal Commission which history records would be a retrograde step.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 25:
Power to issue search warrant.
25. Any justice of the peace, if satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground to suspect that an offence under this Part of this Act in connection with a lottery or proposed lottery has been, or is being, committed on any premises, may grant a warrant under his band authorising any constable named in the warrant, at any time or times within one month from the date thereof, to enter, if necessary by force, the premises named in the warrant and every part thereof, and to search for and seize and remove any documents or money found therein which he has reasonable ground to suppose are on those premises for any purpose which constitutes an infringement of any provision of this Part of this Act relating to lotteries.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, after "oath," to insert "by members of the Police force." The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent any justice of the peace who may be a crank or who may have conscientious scruples from exercising his powers without taking into consideration both sides of the question. I think it is only right that the information should come from the Police, and not from a public informer, for although some of us may sometimes have differences with individual members of the Police I think most of us appreciate the high standard of morality which prevails in the force.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 24, after ("oath") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Amendment, I understand, would provide

755
that a search warrant in respect of a lottery offence could only be granted by a justice of the peace after information on oath by members of the Police force. The Bill provides that a search warrant issued under Clause 25 can only be executed by a constable, but there is no ground whatever for providing that the information on which the justice of the peace satisfies himself that there is reasonable ground to suspect that an offence is being committed on premises must be provided by constables. The Director of Public Prosecutions in England or the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland might wish to lay the information, or it might often happen that the essential information on which a magistrate would grant a search warrant was in the possession of a private individual, either acting as a witness for the Police or as a private prosecutor. Therefore His Majesty's Government hold that the Amendment suggested by the noble Duke, that a search warrant in respect of a lottery offence should only be granted by a justice of the peace, is on these grounds considered unacceptable.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD moved to leave out Clause 25. The noble Lord said: I want to ask the noble Lord first of all whether the Police have not got this power already.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Yes.
LORD BAYFORD: They have? Then, what is the good of the clause? If the Police already have this power, why put it in? The other question I want to ask is whether it will apply to clubs, because from what the noble Marquess told us just now I gathered that lotteries held in Clubs are lawful, and so the question in that case would not arise. I am moving the Amendment on behalf of the Conservative Clubs, and if it does not apply to them at all I am perfectly satisfied, but I desire to get an explanation on both these points, so I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out clause 25.—(Lord Bayford.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Clause 25 proposes to empower a justice of the peace, if satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground
756
to suspect that an unlawful lottery is being conducted on any premises, to issue a search warrant authorising the police to enter the premises by force and to search for and seize and remove documents and money found therein which the Police have reasonable ground to suppose are on the premises for any purpose constituting an infringement of the law. Noble Lords who criticise this clause overlook the fact that it is in substitution of even more drastic provisions in the existing law. It is a modification of present laws which are being repealed by the Second Schedule of the Bill. Thus the Gaming Act of 1802 has a provision in Clause 4, the effect of which is that on complaint or information upon oath any justice by special warrant may authorise any person by day (or by night in the presence of a constable) to break open and enter any house or place and arrest all persons discovered therein, who shall have knowingly aided or assisted, or been in any way concerned with any such offender against law and public peace. Such persons are deemed to be rogues and vagabonds and are punishable accordingly, the punishment being fine or imprisonment or both. Persons hindering or resisting the Police may be fined, imprisoned, and whipped. Again Section 59 of the Lotteries Act, 1823, contains a provision in almost identical terms.
It will therefore be seen that the provisions of the existing law are far more drastic than the provisions in Clause 25 of the Bill. Under the existing law where a magistrate issues a warrant in respect of any premises, offenders on those premises must be arrested, whereas Clause 25 contains no such provision. In effecting an arrest the Police are empowered under the Common Law to search the premises on which the arrest is effected and to seize any documents or articles on those premises which are or may be material as evidence of the offence in respect of which the offender is arrested. All that Clause 25 does is to empower a magistrate to issue a warrant for the seizing of documents or materials issued in connection with an unlawful lottery without the necessity of arresting the offender. I think that I have shown your Lordships that the provisions which are embodied in Clause 25 are much less

757
onerous and drastic than the provisions which exist in the law at the present time.
LORD STRABOLGI: It may be that under the Gaming Act of 1853 and other early Victorian measures these powers exist, but none the less they are very dangerous powers. We are living in Very curious times. The Government has been seeking by devious means to equip itself with powers for searching the premises of private persons. The noble Lord, Lord Bayford, spoke of the workingmen's clubs. They are very jealous of invasion by the Police and quite rightly too. They declare that the Police do not often raid the Reform Club or the Carlton Club in London; and why should they raid their clubs? But there is another reason. This is a private person's house and my noble friends and myself object very much to the present trend of the Government's policy in that direction. We think it is the British Conservative form of Fascism to enable anyone's house to be broken into, in the words of the clause, "by force" and any money or documents seized on the permission of one magistrate in any part of the country, one policeman or one person who is not a police constable. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, elicited from the Government, some informer goes to a magistrate, not quite up to date in his ideas, a reactionary, and then they may search anyone's premises, break open any cupboards, cabinets, safes or anything else, search their persons, and no doubt discover what they are looking for
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I did not make myself clear. I was trying to answer my noble friend and telling him that the provisions of Clause 25 were less drastic than the present law.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Marquess has told us he has those
powers and is re-enacting them in Clause 25.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord misunderstands. They are not re-enacted. The powers in Clause 25 are much less drastic than the powers previously existing.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry I have not explained myself quite clearly. Let me put it briefly and clearly. We want to delete Clause 25 altogether and also delete from the Schedule this power of search and substitute something a great deal less drastic. We object very much to one magistrate having this power, whether it is existing legislation or new legislation. That is what I wish to convey to the noble Marquess. We feel strongly indeed about this matter and for the reasons I have endeavoured to explain we think that the present system should be seriously curtailed. My own views are that no search warrant should be issued without the Director of Public Prosecutions being informed. I think the power is far too wide at present as Governments tend to use the power. What has happened in many countries in Europe was unheard of in this country a few years ago. We were extremely jealous and we still are of the use of the extreme powers by the Police or by the Executive against the liberties of the subject. For that reason we are very sorry that this Bill, which in other ways is a very curious Bill, does contain this extremely objectionable provision. If my noble friends support me I shall certainly divide against the clause.
LORD BAYFORD: The noble Lord opposite has convinced me that this clause is necessary.
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall, stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 5.

CONTENTS.

Sutherland, D.

Onslow, E.

Hereford, V.

Plymouth, E.

Mersey, V.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Radnor, E.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Winchester, L. Bp.

De La Warr, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Effingham, E.

Addington, L.

Feversham, E.

Astor, V.

Askwith, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Bayford, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, V.

Denman, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Halifax, V.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Hampton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Heneage, L.

Polwarth, L.

Strathcon and Mount Royal, L.

Jessel, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lamington, L.

Rhayader, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Sanderson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Clause 25 agreed to accordingly.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Penalties for offences under this Act and forfeitures.
(3) The court before which a person is proved to have committed any offence under Part II of this Act in relation to a lottery or proposed lottery shall order to be forfeited any coins and bank notes in the hands of the police whidh are shown to the satisfaction of the court to represent the price of tickets or chances, or prize money, or prizes in the lottery, and shall order to be destroyed all documents (other than bank notes) in the hands of the police which are shown to the satisfaction of the court to relate to the promotion or conduct of the Lottery.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said; The point I want to raise on this Amendment is that in the case of a club it surely seems rather a strong measure to raid a club and to confiscate any moneys found there when they may belong to perfectly innocent members of the club. If you convict certain organisers in the club of having got up a lottery, there may be a case for confiscating any money that comes to them, but to confiscate the money of an innocent subscriber to the lottery does seem to me rather a strong measure to take. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 26, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Bayford.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Subsection (3) of Clause 28, which this Amendment proposes to delete, provides that a Court before which a person is convicted of an offence against the law relating to lotteries shall confiscate any money in the hands of the Police which is shown to the satisfaction of the Court to represent subscriptions to an unlawful lottery. A provision on those lines is necessary for the purpose of disposing of material seized by the Police in
760
executing a search warrant issued in pursuance of Clause 25 of the Bill. Unless there were power to confiscate such material, it would be necessary for the Police either to deliver it to the promoter or to endeavour to return the money in their possession to each individual subscriber. When a lottery promoter has been convicted of an offence and the lottery, having been declared illegal, is stopped, it is clearly undesirable that the proceeds of the lottery should be returned to the promoter, who would thus reap considerable financial benefit from his defiance of the law. On the other hand, there are obviously the strongest objections to throwing on the Police the responsibility for returning money seized to individual subscribers.
The necessity for a power to confiscate is clearly demonstrated by a recent experience. In the autumn of 1931 a Christmas draw was organised in Swansea purporting to be for the benefit of the Glamorgan County Cricket Club. For this purpose a large number of tickets headed "Glamorgan County Development Club" were issued and sold at a price of 6d. each to such of the general public as were willing to purchase them and a large sum of money was received by the promoters from the sale of these tickets. The lottery came to the knowledge of the Police who, on December 9, prosecuted the promoter at the Swansea Police Court for offences against the Gaming Act, 1802, and the Lotteries Act, 1823. The promoter pleaded guilty to the charge under the Gaming Act and was fined £25 and after an adjournment he was bound over on the Lotteries Act charge in the sum of £250, on condition that all moneys at the bank or in cash received in respect of the lottery should be paid by him into an account in a bank to abide any order made by the Home Secretary as to its disposal. In pursuance of this order of the Court, a sum was handed over amounting to approximately £6,000. The Home Secre-

761
tary has declined to undertake any responsibility for the distribution of the fund since he had no power to make any order for the purpose, and since 1931 there has been a series of actions for the purpose of determining the disposal of this money. I think under these circurnstances the noble Lord will see that it would be very dlifficult to accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (3) to leave out the first "shall" and insert "may." The noble Earl said: On behalf of the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, may I move this Amendment, which I think is a very harmless one? It is to insert the word "may" instead of "shall." I quite agree with the noble Marquess as to the necessity for the power to confiscate the money, but surely the Court concerned might at least have a discretion. There may be cases of a technical offence, where a prosecution is necessarily undertaken, where the Court might have a discretion not to confiscate the money. There might be a small village lottery in which, quite unwittingly, an offence is committed. Perhaps if the noble Marquess would consider it on those lines and give the Court a power to use a discretion it would not be asking a great deal.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 28, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment would constitute a discretionary power of forfeiture for the mandatory power which is proposed in the Bill. I ventured just now to point out when I spoke on the last Amendment that it was clearly necessary that the law should be amended to provide a power of confiscation. The only question at issue, therefore, which arises on this Amendment is as to whether that power should be discretionary or whether it should be mandatory. I would put it to your Lordships in this way. If Parliament is really in earnest in the desire to prohibit large-scale lotteries, it does seem to be essential that the promoters of illegal lotteries or the agents of lotteries promoted abroad should be made fully aware that in no circumstances would they be allowed to reap the benefit of their illegal activities.
762
There is a further important consideration, that to give Courts a discretionary power in this matter of forfeiture would place them in a very invidious position. It would appear that in equity, if money is to be confiscated in respect of any illegal lottery, it should be confiscated in all alike. But apart from the considerations of equity, what is the criterion which should determine the Court's decision, and in what circumstances should the money he returned to a lottery promoter or his agent who has been convicted of promoting an illegal lottery which, as a consequence of his conviction, must necessarily be abandoned? I think the noble Earl, on reflection, will see the very difficult position in which the Courts would be placed, and as the suggestion of the Bill is that it is mandatory and as the object of the Bill is to frustrate those promoters of illegal lotteries who desire to promote those lotteries for their own gain, I think the noble Earl will see that putting the mandatory power in this Bill is infinitely better than leaving it to the discretionary power which the Amendment proposes.
LORD BAYFORD: May I ask if the power contained in this clause is the existing law, or is an alteration of the law?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It is new
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Provisions regulating the establishment and operation of totalisators on dog racecourses.
1. A totalisator set up under this Act on a dog racecourse shall be a mechanically or electrically operated apparatus complying with such conditions as a Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
2. The person, whether the occupier of the track or a person authorised in writing by the occupier, by whom the totalisator is operated (in this Schedule referred to as "the operator") shall distribute or cause to be distributed the whole of the moneys staked on any race or races by means of the totalisator among the persons winning bets made by means of the totalisator on that race or those races, after deducting or causing to be deducted such percentage, not exceeding three per cent., as he may from time to time determine.
Provided that—

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

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

4. The accountant and his technical adviser and their respective servants authorised in that behalf in writing may, at all reasonable times, enter the premises in which the totalisator is set up, and examine any part of the mechanism and test and watch the working thereof, and may require the operator and any servant of his to give to them all such information, and to produce to them all such accounts, books and other documents, as they deem necessary.
8. Without prejudice to his duties under the preceding paragraphs, the accountant shall, as soon as may be after the close of each calendar year, audit the accounts of the operator for the year and, if such be the fact, shall certify thereon that satisfactory statements of account have been submitted to him monthly in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of this Schedule and have been examined by him, and that to the best of his information and belief, formed after consultation with his technical adviser, the accounts for the year are complete and accurate and the totalisator complies with the prescribed conditions and has throughout the year been maintained in proper working order and properly operated in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule; and the operator shall forthwith cause the accounts and certificate to be printed and shall transmit two copies thereof to the licensing authority, who shall cause one of those copies to be deposited at their offices for inspection at any time during office hours by any member of the public free of charge.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved to leave out paragraph 1. The noble Duke said: The first paragraph of this Schedule requires that
"A totalisator set up under this Act on a dog racecourse shall be a mechanically or electrically operated apparatus complying with such conditions as a Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe."
All that greyhound racing asks is that it should have the same freedom in the choice of its equipment as horse racing already has. In point of fact the types of totalisator prescribed by the Schedule are those which have been scrapped on nearly all horse racecourses because of their expense of operation. A manage-
764
ment should be entitled to choose for itself the type of equipment which most suits its own circumstances, and it should not be debarred from taking advantage of improvements in the design and manufacture of such equipment. It is especially important that managements should have this freedom if the totalisator percentage is to be at a low figure. It is only where there is a very large public that an all-electric totalisator is commercially possible; moreover, even at the biggest tracks, the operation of double-event betting has been universally effected through hand-operated systems. If the supervision of a chartered accountant is considered by the Government to be sufficient in the case of a mechanical totalisator, it should be equally so in the case of a hand-operated pool.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 5, leave out paragraph 1.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERI: The noble Duke seems to think, or has shown, that there is differentiation in this Bill between dog racing and horse racing. I would like to point out to your Lordships that the cases are on an entirely different footing. I speak with some knowledge of this subject because I am one of those who represent the Jockey Club on the Betting Control Board, and we have to provide for sometimes forty horses in a race. On no course except one is there more than sixteen days racing in the year, and we find the electric "tote" economically unsound. It has the advantage of being much surer and affords much less chance of fraud, because the human element is eliminated. I can assure the noble Duke that if we had a racecourse on which we were allowed to race 104 days in the year, with not more than six horses, we would be glad to use the electric "tote" and would look upon it as a veritable gold mine.
THE EARL OF EFFINGFIAM: I have an Amendment on the same lines as that of the noble Duke, and for this reason I support him very strongly. I do not know whether the Government is aware of the fact or not, that their opposition to pari mutuel betting on the course by any other means than by the use of mechanical or electrical apparatus will have the effect of disqualifying the use of the hand-operated machine, not only

765
for doubles and trebles events, but for ordinary win pools betting. The argument has been advanced by the Government's spokesmen that the First Schedule was drawn up in order to safeguard the public from the possibility of the manipulation of the figures betted by the public during the progress of the betting. The Government must be aware, however, that it is possible to operate pari mutuel betting by hand machines in quite as efficient a fashion as by mechanical or electrical means. This could be done by chartered accountants collecting the units invested by the public from the betting tickets used as betting progresses, and circulating these units to the main blackboard by telephone.
Do the Government realise, in spite of their reiterated statements that they do not wish to exterminate the sport, that if the hand-operatod machine be not permitted it will have the effect of closing down (out of 225 tracks engaged in the sport) approximately 75 per cent of these venues? It is well known that only the larger tracks with large capital have installed electrical machines, which cannot be bought for a less sum than £7,000 or £8,000. How in view of this large cost would the smaller tracks instal this costly apparatus? And since the Government have made the point that the public who attend these meetings should have alternative forms of betting, can they still insist on no other apparatus being used than either mechanical or electrical apparatus?
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to support the Amendment. I was not impressed with the arguments used by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, because he forgot to say that in point-to-point races they do not have a totalisator in the ordinary sense at all. They have a totalisator worked by a girl in a tent, but they do not even put on the blackboard the approximate odds that you are going to get. It is grossly unfair to allow horse racing tracks to use any kind of totalisator, and not to allow the same facilities to greyhound racing tracks. I have an Amendment on this, and it seems to me that we are asking for a very reasonable thing. We are asking, for instance, that a chartered accountant should be present and control everything, and that the units should be written up
766
so that everybody can see before the beginning of each race.
LORD ASKWITH: I also support this Amendment. I put it on two grounds. I think it is an unfair thing that invention should be tied down in regard to this new instrument to a particular line in this way. A celebrated person connected with art said the other day that he strongly objected to the regimentation of art. I strongly object to the regimentation of invention, and the invention may be produced that would make these electrically and mechanically controlled machines available for this purpose, but at the present time they are not available at all. When we were on Clause 3 the noble Marquess produced a new clause in which he purported to allow pari mutuel betting on greyhound courses under certain restrictions. It was to be allowed only on a licensed track, "being a dog racecourse in accordance with the provisions of this Act which relate to totalisators and dog racecourses." That was governed by this Schedule. The Schedule deals with mechanically and electrically controlled apparatus and confines the machines that you may use to those particular kinds of machines as approved by the Home Secretary. I find that this kind of machine is not used and has been stopped as very difficult to employ and as causing very great expense.
But on one class of betting that is very usual, and which there is no reason should not be employed if betting is allowed at all—double-event betting—the hand machine is absolutely the only one that is used. It is said—and I called for a report from experts on the matter—that double-event betting is universally done by hand machines; and although a machine has been invented by one manufacturer none has, in fact, ever been used. That is the expert opinion. The expense of operating such a machine is prohibitive. It has to sell no fewer than thirty-six combinations, and it has to have an enormous indicator showing the figures of betting on its thirty-six combinations, which would constitute a blot on the landscape. It would have to be an entirely separate machine from the ordinary win-and-place pools, and it would be used for only one bet a night. Further it would cost about £30,000.

767
Really, to pretend to give pari mutuel betting and then to insist that it should be confined to certain machines which are not capable of doing the work properly, that they should be the only machines that can be used, that they should be the only kind of invention of which note should be taken, and that they should be subject to the control of the Government who would have to pay experts to decide which are the best machines—to do that seems to me to be pretending to give a gift and placing round it such restrictions that the gift is scarcely worth having at all.
The Amendments of the noble Duke and the noble Lord seem to be very fair suggestions on this matter, and, even if the wording is not correct, at any rate the matter should be taken into consideration and some definite proposition put forward which would meet the facts of the case, the practical knowledge that exists, and the control that is necessary. If a chartered accountant can control mechanical machines and look after their interests, with an expert mechanician to assist him, surely he can equally easily look after and control the hand machines which are the usual method by which pari mutuel betting is carried on. The draftsman of the Bill seems to have thought that the best way of doing it is by a machine. A knowledge of the practical working of the actual system seems to be quite beyond the draftsman of the Bill. I venture to support the noble Duke and hope he will divide on his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am sure your Lordships will have been pleased to hear the maiden speech delivered by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery. I feel I may, on behalf of your Lordships, express the hope that we shall often hear his contributions in your Lordships' House. Those of us who are of the older generation have a distinct and clear recollection of his illustrious predecessor, and the best we can hope is that the noble Earl may follow that illustrious example.
The Bill proposes in paragraph 1 of the First Schedule that a totalisator set up by the occupier of a licensed dog track shall be a "mechanically or electrically operated apparatus complying with such conditions as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe." But I would
768
like to say that there is no compulsion to use the totalisator at all. It is in the discretion of dog racecourses to use totalisators or not use them. But if they do make up their minds to use them they must comply with such conditions as the Secretary of State has by regulation prescribed. I think the noble Earl to whom I have just ventured to refer gave the proper answer to this Amendment and I do not feel that there is any necessity for me to go more deeply into the question than the noble Earl did in his speech. We understand that it is objected to this proposal that it is unfair to require the dog totalisator to be mechanically operated at a time when the Racecourse Betting Control Board has practically discontinued the use of mechanical totalisators on horse racecourses. The answer to this criticism is twofold. In the first place, the totalisator on horse racecourses is not conducted for private profit and is operated and supervised by a responsible statutory board. The reasons why the Government cannot agree to the establishment of a similar board in respect of the totalisator on dog tracks have already been explained on several occasions and we would have had a debate on that subject if the noble Duke had moved his Amendment.
In the second place the conditions on horse racecourses are not comparable with those on dog racecourses. The mechanical totalisator on horse racecourses has proved not to be an economic proposition because on the great majority of horse racecourses racing only takes place on a few days in the year, the average number of racing days being about seven. Experience has shown that though the mechanical totalisator is much to be preferred it is not economic to maintain costly and elaborate mechanical apparatus which can be used so rarely on each course, and the Board have been reluctantly compelled to abandon the use of the electrical totalisators on racecourses other than those used more frequently or those which are specially lucrative. The position is quite different in the case of greyhound racing, since on each licensed track the totalisator will be allowed to be used on 104 days each year. I think this really answers the Amendment which the noble Duke has put forward and I hope your Lordships will not accept it.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: There is one point I think the noble Marquess did not take into consideration and that was that on horse-lacing courses 12 per cent. is allowed on the "tote" while on these courses only 3 per cent. is at present provided. That would make a good deal of difference to the expense of operating the totalisator.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: There is one other point to which I would draw the noble Marquess's attention. He says it is not compulsory on these tracks to have totalisators. That is quite true, but to use a familiar phrase, if to-day is a betting day they will have betting of some sort on these tracks, and if they cannot have a totalisator because it is far too expensive you will give the betting into the hands of the bookmakers rather than the totalisator. It seems to me the totalisator is rather better than a bookmaker, or less worse.
THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM: How does the noble Marquess suggest that the smaller greyhound courses can possibly spend £7,000 or £8,000 on a dog "tote" and with an allowance of 3 per cent. deduction make any sort of a living and keep their courses going as they should be kept, employ chartered accountants and so on?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have been trying to explain to noble Lords that there is no compulsion to pay this £7,000. There is no necessity for the smaller courses to have a totalisator. I hardly think the management of any course would run a totalisator if they found it was a burden on their finances.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved to add to paragraph 1:
"Amongst such regulations shall be one directing that the operator shall cause to be shown during the progress of the betting all units betted, both by means of mechanically or electrically operated apparatus, or otherwise, and final pools shall he exhibited prior to the commencement of the race by the operator, his servant, agent or assistant."
The noble Earl said: Before I move this Amendment I should like to say, in view of the fact that in the report in The Times of yesterday's debate there is a cross heading "A Labour Alternative," that the Amendments I have moved have
770
not been moved on behalf of the Labour Party but entirely on my own behalf. A few minutes ago I more or less stated the object of this Amendment. There are many types of totalisators—the clockfaced type, the pillar type and so on—and I feel it is in the interests of the public that they should know the number of units on each dog. It is for that purpose that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 8, at end insert the said words,—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The whole object of this provision is to avoid the necessity of prescribing details in the Statute. I can assure the noble Earl that the Government will give careful consideration to the matter and at some future date regulations will be framed which will cover the point raised by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I take it then that the Government will consider between now and Report whether they can do anything about this Amendment?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I think the undertaking I have given is sufficient. Your Lordships will agree that detailed rules prescribing the method by which these operators should work are unnecessary in the Statute, but the substance of the Amendment will be included after careful consideration in any rules that are made under the sehedule.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "three" and insert "seven and one-half." The noble Duke said: By paragraph 2 of the First Schedule greyhound totalisators are to be limited to a three per cent. deduction. No totalisator as laid down in the Bill at any racecourse in the country can be operated on this basis, and the restriction proposed is so severe as to amount to a continued refusal of "tote" facilities to the greyhound racing public. If there is an intention to grant the "tote" to them then it must be given under conditions that at least make its operation reasonably possible. The percentage of expenditure in the operation of the totalisator to

771
the total pools varies according to the size of these pools. I would like to read to your Lordships actual figures for the operation of the totalisator at a number of licensed racecourses in different parts of the country. They speak for themselves. In London, at Wembley, the capital cost of installation was £21,574; total pools for the year, £470,894; revenue (10 per cent. of pool plus breakages), £52,235; operating and other costs, £21,810; percentage of expenditure to total pools, 4.63 per cent. In the Midlands, at Perry Barr, Birmingham, the capital cost of installation was £8,800; total pools for the year, £90,000; revenue (10 per cent. of pools plus breakages) £10,700; operating and other costs, £6,000, percentage of expenditure to total pools, 7.1 per cent.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Perhaps the noble Duke would like me to interrupt him at this stage, because I have a suggestion to make after the noble Duke has finished his remarks, which I have no doubt your Lordships would like to hear. It may guide his remarks if I tell him that there is certainly no desire on the part of the Government to be unreasonable in this matter. We are quite unable to accept the proposal that the deduction should be increased to 7½ per cent., but I can assure your Lordships that if a case is made out for a slight increase in the pools, the Government will certainly consider the matter further at a later stage.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I wish to thank the noble Marquess very much. That will be a very great help, but I think it would perhaps be right that I should continue to some extent with these figures, to show what the position is at the present moment, and then they will be on record. For instance, take the figures of the Welsh White City at Cardiff: capital cost of installation, £12,448; total pools for the year, £83,449; revenue (10 per cent. of pools plus breakages), £9,829; operating and other costs, £7,567; percentage of expenditure to total pools, 9.07 per cent. This expenditure does not include any charge for rent, rates, or management expenses. Depreciation and amortisation has been calculated on the basis of 15 per cent. On cost of installation. Interest on capital has been calculated on the basis of 5 per cent.
772
In the case of all these racecourses a considerable proportion of the revenue was derived from hand-operated pool betting for the "daily double," etc., which the Bill as it stands debars. Moreover, these figures are with a "breakage" of 3d., which is the same breakage as allowed in horse racing, and not the drastic minimum of a penny. In actual fact the cost of the operation of the electric totalisator for ordinary win and place pools in the case of Wembley was approximately 5½ per cent. of the total pool. If the totalisators quoted had been operated on a basis of 3 per cent. deduction and a 1d. breakage, the loss incurred in each case for the period of operation would have been as follows: Wembley, £5,971 (nine months only); Perry Barr, £3,064; Cardiff, £4,570. In the case of the White City in London the average salary paid to the totalisator staff per meeting was £150, which I think is not excessive. On a basis of 3 per cent. the management would require to take a pool of one hundred thousand one shilling units per meeting to cover this cost alone. This figure is very considerably in excess of any pool when the totalisator was in operation.
The restrictions upon greyhound racing in regard to the "tote" proposed by this Bill at present—I am very glad to hear that the position is to be ameliorated—are not equitable when the conditions given to horse racing are considered. I do not want anybody to think that I am saying one word against horse racing. On the contrary, nobody would like to see horse racing prosper more than myself. I can only compare one with the other. The Racecourse Betting Act of 1928 lays down no restrictions whatever upon the percentage to be deducted. In point of fact the horse race "totes" started at 6 per cent., but later the amount had to be increased, and to-day it is approximately 12 per cent. There seems to be a general idea that horse racecourse managements Are debarred from any interest in totalisator takings, but this idea is quite erroneous. These managements in fact take 1 per cent. of all off-course "tote" betting, while by an agreement mentioned in the Control Board's Annual Report for 1929 the managements are also to take 60 per cent. of any surpluses from on-course "tote" betting as well. If the principle is right for horse

773
racing it is right also for greyhound racing. That is the only reason I mention it.
By axing the "tote" percentage at too low a figure the Bill will provide a direct incentive to managements, in fact a compulsion upon them, to stimulate the maximum possible amount of betting in order to cover expenses, thus defeating one of the main objects of the Bill and creating a most undesirable state of affairs. If the percentage is low the turnover must be as big as possible, and managements will be forced to employ every device to make the public bet as much as possible. In the case of the White City just quoted, for example, the management would have to secure the investment of 100,000 units at 1s. before they could even pay the wages of the "tote" staff. Thus from commercial necessity, even on the better courses, the sport will be subordinated to the betting and made dependent on it.
From the figures quoted it will be seen that the fixing of a percentage deduction of 7½ per cent. will allow in some cases for the making of a profit, but in others a loss will be incurred. If the Government will not agree to the establishment of a statutory authority to operate the totalisator or the sliding scale of deductions according to circumstances, it necessarily follows that any reasonable figures arrived at will deal hardly with one racecourse while benefiting another. The figure of 7— per cent. was only suggested as a mean, and I am very glad indeed to hear the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill say that, although that figure cannot be agreed to, some figure between the proposed figure of 3 per cent. and 7½ per cent. will be decided on. The suggestion has been made by the Government, I think in the Second Reading debate, that, the totalisator being an added facility on a greyhound racecourse, it would be reasonable to suppose that any deficit due to the operation of the "tote" could be set off against increased admission charges to the public. That would be very difficult. It would be equally reasonable to suggest that the price of a cup of tea should be increased. Greyhound racing caters for the man of limited means, and any increased admission charges would in many cases preclude his attendance. High prices mean lower attendances. I beg to move.
Amendment move—
Page 27, line 16, leave out ("three") and insert ("seven and one-half").—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
LORD ASKWITH: I am very glad that my noble friend has brought these facts and put them upon record, because they will be very useful for consideration when the noble Marquess comes to look more closely into the matter. I am sure that every piece of information which he may desire will be given to him. That would meet my view of the matter, because I think these clauses have been drafted without practical knowledge of how the totalisator works; and if those who have had practical experience of it can give any information upon the point, I am sure that they will be very ready to do so and to assist in a settlement of this difficulty which will lead to the whole of the trouble on both sides being settled in a better way than seemed possible when this very drastic suggestion was put down in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: At this late hour I am not proposing to follow the noble Duke in the remarks which he has made. I will only say that I do not accept the whole of the statements that he has made. I would point out to the noble Lord who has just spoken that this matter has been very closely gone into; it has been very closely investigated. I have given the noble Duke an undertaking that we are naturally considering this matter from every point of view. We are considering exactly what can be done, and I have told him that if we can see that there is a case to be made out we shall not be unwilling to increase the percentage of the deductions from the pools. That is the undertaking which I gave to the noble Duke some quarter of an hour ago.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: I should like to thank the noble Marquess. I only quoted those figures in order to try to make out a good case on which he could go, before finally coming to a decision.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I know, but I do not accept them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved to add to proviso (b) in paragraph 2: "and a further condition that where the ticket,

775
coupon, form or statement of such bet be lost, torn, defaced or unclaimed the money represented or obtainable upon the presentation of such ticket, coupon, form, or statement shall accrue and be paid to the occupier of the track." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent the occupier of a track having to pay out on tickets, coupons, forms or statements of bets which are torn, defaced or unclaimed. This really only brings it into line with what has been already prescribed by the Racecourse Betting Control Board. It is very easy for people to forge these torn-up tickets, and it leads to a lot of trouble and a lot of unnecessary work on behalf of the track. I know it may be said that some track owners are unscrupulous themselves. I am not going to press this Amendment, but I do think that some words should be inserted here in order to bring it into line with the course already adopted by the Racecourse Betting Control Board.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am glad to hear that the noble Earl is not going to press his Amendment, because I think it would have unexpected and undesirable consequences which perhaps he has not taken into consideration. There may be no attempt at fraud, and the ticket may be quite legible, and easy to identify, yet the slightest tear or damage or defacement would entitle the operator to refuse payment. On those grounds I think the Amendment would be unfair.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I agree entirely with the noble Earl, but would it be possible to give general effect to my idea? I confess I am not satisfied with my own Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM moved, in paragraph 4, after "deem necessary," to insert "and shall be present at all times at race meetings, calculating dividends, and issuing therefor certificates on the next following working day. He shall have power to authorise his clerk, assistant, or servant to act for or on his behalf for such purpose." The noble Earl said: We think it very important that either a chartered accountant or an incorporated
776
accountant should be present at all and every meeting, in charge of the whole operation, in conjunction with a mechanic or other servant for the purpose of calculating dividends or any pools whatsoever. It may mean employing on some of the larger tracks four to six accountants. It should also be compulsory for the chartered accountant to certify the following working day that all dividends calculated were correct. It must be a sine qua non that, whichever of the two great bodies of accountants supply the accountants, they must be of such quality, status and integrity that their certificates would be acceptable without question by the Inland Revenue authorities for the preparation of accounts for Income Tax purposes. As the elaborate "tote" is both fool- and fraud-proof the mechanic suggested in the Bill is given undue prominence. Were he placed in the position which the Bill gives him it would be very difficult for the management to determine his services, he having power to question the bona fides of their working of the "tote." The chartered accountant is the expert who would decide equitably and exactly, not the mechanic.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 42, at end, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Effingham.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I understand that the effect of the Amendment would be that the accountant and the technical adviser of the accountant would cease to be supervisors of the operation of the totalisator, as is proposed in the Bill, and they would be placed in the position of being operators of the totalisator. The scheme in the Bill is that the operator of the track should operate the totalisator, and that his operations should be subject to supervision by an accountant, and it is held by the Government that the Amendment would in fact place the accountant and his technical adviser in the position of being operators. On those grounds the Amendment, I am afraid, cannot be accepted.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD moved to insert at the end of paragraph 8:
"Provided that, where the licensing authority is a joint committee appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of this Act, the operator shall transmit to the licensing authority such number of

777
copies of the accounts and certificate as are sufficient to enable the licensing authority to keep one copy at their offices for the purpose of record and to deposit for inspection as aforesaid one copy at their offices and one copy at the offices of each of the councils by whom the licensing authority was appointed."
The noble Lord said: I understand the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 6, after ("charge") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Bayford.)
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before twelve o'clock.