§ LORD ELTISLEYMy Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 105 be considered with a view to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill. The Standing Order requires that this Bill, being a local Bill, shall be read a second time not earlier than the fourth nor later than the seventh day after it has received a First Reading. The Bill was read a first time on February 7. It should have been down for Second Reading long before this, but as a Motion for an Instruction was lodged against the Bill it was felt that it would be for the convenience of all parties if consideration of the Bill were deferred to a later date. I therefore beg to move suspension of Standing Order No. 105.
§ Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.—(Lord Eltisley.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ LORD ELTISLEYMy Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I take it that the House will not desire me to go in any detail into the provisions of this Bill. It is a Bill which covers a considerable field. It has no fewer than 132 pages, 201 clauses, 11 Parts, and four Schedules, and it would take a very long time were I to inflict a description of its many provisions on the House. I might say, however, that it is an omnibus Bill dealing with a number of matters the great majority of which are unopposed and are generally accepted. It is a Bill to extend the Borough boundaries to the north and to include an area of land which has been purchased by the Corporation, who desire to develop it mainly for housing purposes. Other provisions in the Bill are common form clauses which are generally accepted as suitable for adoption by local authorities without compelling them to give special proof of their necessity. As the House is aware, Bootle adjoins the City of Liverpool, and many matters of common concern arise, such, for example, as the disposal of sewage, in respect of which there is a Joint Sewage Board. There is a church which has to be moved in order to make room for a school site, and that matter has been adjusted to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. There are many miscellaneous provisions which are not opposed. With regard to Clause 118, the clause on which an Instruction is being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I shall not refer to that matter now because after he has moved the Instruction he will, perhaps, give me an opportunity of replying. With these few comments, I have said everything that is necessary in moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Eltisley.)
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
§ LORD STRABOLGI had given Notice that in the event of the Bill being read a second time, he would move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, to which the Bill may be referred, to strike out Clause 118 (Gaming and betting). The 140 noble Lord said: My Lords, the Instruction on the Paper, as your Lordships will see, refers to Clause 118. The reasons why your Lordships should support the clause have been circulated by the authority concerned, and no doubt your Lordships have had their representations in your hands. You will see that the clause is aimed at certain bookmakers in Bootle. What happens to the bookmakers is not my concern, although they are entitled to justice like anyone else; but this clause has occasioned a great deal of alarm to showmen—proprietors of fair grounds, travelling circuses, and amusement parks—and they have asked me to move this Instruction. Their reasons are that it would give special powers to the police in Bootle to seize their amusement and pin tables and things of that sort, which power does not exist in any other part of the country, with one exception. Liverpool, I understand, obtained similar powers in their Bill in 1927, but since then, as a result partly of the deliberations of the Royal Commission which sat on betting and gambling, a new Bill has been introduced which became an Act of Parliament in 1934 dealing with lotteries and betting, which, I think, alters the whole position.
§ It comes, therefore, to this, that the Bootle police, who I understand want this clause, are asking for preferential treatment, and for special powers over the established law of the land and beyond those possessed by the police in any other part of the country with the exception of Liverpool. The contention of those for whom I am speaking is that if such powers are desirable they should be part of a General Act of Parliament brought into either House as a Bill, where it can be properly discussed, and should not be brought in under the cover of this omnibus measure, which deals with the acquisition of churches, the extension of borough boundaries, and other perfectly desirable objects. As the noble Lord opposite has already pointed out, the clause does not specifically mention bookmakers, and if it were confined to bookmakers the showmen would have no objection, but it can undoubtedly be used against showmen.
§ Now the police have plenty of powers under the Acts of 1845, 1853 and 1854, and also under the new law of 1934. There are in these fair grounds what are called pin tables. Pennies are put into 141 them, and if the skill of the operator leads to success a small prize is given. I dare say that can be stigmatised as gambling and as very sinful, but it does give a lot of harmless amusement to many people. In certain districts the Chief Constables have rather harried and hunted the fair ground proprietors, and have contended that these machines are gambling and have launched prosecutions. It is perfectly right and proper if they launch a prosecution, because then the case can be defended, but under this clause the police will be able to seize the apparatus and all the money on the premises, and they will have far wider powers than would otherwise exist. Are your Lordships aware that it has been held that a cocoanut shy is illegal because a prize is won—namely, a cocoanut—if you knock it over? I wonder how many of your Lordships have broken this law in your younger days, or aided and abetted your children or grandchildren to break the law to-day.
§ This whole question of gambling and betting has been thoroughly examined and dealt with by legislation, and if there is a case for strengthening the law, Parliament, we suggest, should be asked to strengthen it; people should not be granted the specially wide powers which are given by this Bill. This is really piecemeal legislation and we consider it objectionable. On behalf of those very hard-working people who provide amusement and recreation for the people, and who feel very alarmed at this particular clause, I hope your Lordships will support me in instructing the Committee to strike it out. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, to which the Bill may be referred, to strike out Clause 118 (Gaming and betting).—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on this subject. The clause follows the precedent which is set in the Liverpool Corporation Act and which is now the law in Liverpool. I imagine, therefore, that everybody in Liverpool who wants to have a shot at a cocoanut is breaking the law and Boottle desires to follow the Liverpool precedent.
LORD STRABOLGIWould the Lord Chairman forgive me for intervening? The trouble is this. It is not that the Bill 142 creates a new illegality in Bootle, but it gives power to the police to confiscate all the cocoanuts and balls and money on the premises.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWLiverpool seems to have very comprehensive powers. I shall not go into the question of cocoanuts at the present moment; I was never so fortunate as to win one. I am a bad shot, I suppose. The point is this. The clause is not petitioned against; I do not suppose there is anybody who has a locus to petition against it. There may or there may not be. If there is anybody who could petition against it, he could not do so now because the time for petitioning is over. It is an unusual, and I think, if I may respectfully say so, a very inconvenient course on Second Reading to send an Instruction to the Committee. These clauses are all of them somewhat complicated, and they are perhaps more easily examined upstairs than on the floor of your Lordships House. I entirely agree with my noble friend opposite that it is very desirable that these matters should be very carefully examined, and I was going to suggest a course to your Lordships which perhaps might meet my noble friend opposite, and also the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, and it is this. The Bill is petitioned against. It is going to the Committee upstairs, and I suggest that a letter be forwarded to the Chairman of the Committee, sending him a copy of the speeches which have been made to-day in your Lordships' House on the subject, and asking him to give very careful consideration to the observations which have been made upon the clause as it stands. I think perhaps in that way it will certainly get very full consideration, and I venture to think that that is a more convenient procedure than issuing an Instruction to the Committee such as is proposed by my noble friend opposite. I do not know whether that suggestion would appeal to other noble Lords, but I rather hope it might do so.
§ LORD ELTISLEYMy Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for the way he has received the Bill as a whole and especially for the kind way in which he referred to myself. I am not sure how far I can follow his argument about cocoanuts. It is an unexpected argument to me. I believe that if the cocoanuts are so arranged that shying at 143 them becomes a game of skill, legal proceedings cannot be taken against it, but I have no special legal knowledge and cannot deal with that point. So far as my own experience of fairs is concerned, when I have had a shy at the cocoanuts, my only trouble has been that I have won so few. I think the suggestion put forward by the Chairman of Committees is a very common-sense, practical way of dealing with this difficulty, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will see his way to accept it. The Bill is really aimed at the legal control of a small section of bookmakers, not the respectable bookmakers but a small section of bookmakers and the way in which they indulge in a good many practices that are contrary to the law. We know that at every race meeting, as in every gaming house no doubt, there is a small section of "bookies" who bring discredit on those who are doing proper business. I myself have been at several local race meetings, and seen "bookies" speed over the plough pursued by a crowd, and eventually they have been thrown into the local pond. I have also seen a "bookie" creep under a coach and emerge on the opposite side respectably attired as a clergyman of the Church of England. One could quote innumerable instances of that kind.
This clause is not to deal with reputable bookmakers or with the great majority of the bookmaking class, but with a small number who set up gaming rooms which it is very difficult to deal with and control. I want to emphasize that these powers are already possessed, as was fairly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, by the Liverpool police and as far as I know they work quite smoothly. In a way this clause is a try-out of what may become a very useful piece of legislation. The noble Lord suggested that it is not a suitable piece of legislation to carry on a piecemeal basis, but I venture to think that where local government matters are concerned it is often much the best way to try out some legislation when you are not sure whether it will work fairly or not, and this is a case where that might usefully be done rather than introduce general legislation which would be controversial and might not work satisfactorily. Therefore I urge that the consideration of this clause should be granted. Bootle is virtually part of Liverpool and it is obviously very inconvenient 144 to have totally different systems on each side of an imaginary frontier.
I do not know how far your Lordships are seized of what goes on when a raid is made, but I am given to understand that it is a highly complicated and skilled matter. When the police have reason to believe that illegal gaming is going on, agents of the police have to be introduced into the gaming rooms. The bookmaker in charge takes great interest in any new arrivals and tries to find out whence they come and what is their object. Very often they will not be allowed to bet until they have paid several visits. Meanwhile his touts are finding out as much as they can about these new clients. When the raid is eventually made procedure has to be very carefully followed, and although the law has been broken it is not by any means easy to bring the matter home. The purpose of Clause 118 is to give the police power to seize not only the gaming apparatus but also any moneys which have obviously been changing hands as the result of gaming transactions.
I suggest that this is a matter for close attention and consideration by an independent Committee such as a Select Committee. I think the House should have some hesitation in adopting the course of accepting a mandatory Motion and issuing a definite Instruction to the Committee to leave out the clause, the effect of which would be to decide against the promoters without giving them an opportunity of stating their case. No one likes to have a decision given against him, but he feels particularly sore when it is given against him and he has been given no opportunity of being heard. If parties have been heard they go away at any rate with the knowledge that they have been fairly treated, and have had, so to speak, a run for their money. It is frequently said in Courts of Law that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done. That is a quotation from a judgment of the Lord Chief Justice. I suggest that the same wise saying should apply in a matter of this kind. I hope that the matter will not be pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, but that he will be willing to accept the advice and suggestion put forward by the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, like the noble Lord opposite, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, for his very helpful suggestion, which I am quite prepared to accept. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is to be Chairman of the Committee which will examine the Bill, and I would venture to ask him if he would be prepared to call witnesses from amongst the showmen to state how they might suffer. They have nothing to do with the bookmakers. What has been said about the bookmakers does not apply to these showmen in any way, but they feel that they may be in danger and they would be glad to have the chance of giving evidence.
LORD REDESDALEMy Lords, I personally have no objection to calling showmen as witnesses, and they can be heard upstairs in the same way as anybody else, but at the present time there is no opposition to this clause. As there are no petitions, there is, as far as I know, no opportunity for witnesses to appear. That would be a great difficulty.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, there was a similar case some years ago when an unopposed clause was brought to the special attention of the Committee and arrangements were made for a society, with which I think the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson, was associated, to put a case by their witnesses. I cannot remember the exact details at the moment, but I can look up the precedent for my noble friend.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.