Lords Sitting of 10 May 1956

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD TERRINGTON on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Earl of Bessborough—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (No. 2) BILL
Read 2ª.

SMALL LOTTERIES AND GAMING BILL
3.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Exemption of certain small lotteries conducted for charitable, sporting or other purposes
1.
(2) A lottery to which this section applies 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:—
(a) the promoter of the lottery shall be a member of the society authorised in writing by the governing body of the society to act as such;
(i) every ticket, and every notice or advertisement of the lottery lawfully exhibited, distributed, or published, shall bear the name of the society and the name and address of the promoter;
(m) no ticket or chance shall be sold by a person under sixteen years of age
LORD CHORLEY: This is a small drafting Amendment to change the word "bear" which appears in paragraph (i) of subsection (2) to "specify," which would seem a more suitable word. I do
340
not think it requires any further explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("bear") and insert ("specify").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved in paragraph (i) of subsection (2) to leave out "and" where that word occurs a second time. The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which in a sense again is drafting, is preparatory to the next one which, with the permission of the Committee, I will explain now. On the Second Reading of this Bill the most reverend Primate, in a speech which some of your Lordships will remember, made a number of practical suggestions as to the way in which he felt that this Bill might be improved by being made rather more concrete, and he asked me if I would look at them. Naturally, in the light of such a suggestion I have considered them in consultation with the promoters. I should like to say that we have received a good deal of assistance, both in respect of this matter and other matters which appear later, from the legal advisers at the Home Office, to whom I should like to express our thanks.
One of the points which the most reverend Primate made was that the particulars which had to be submitted to the local authority were, to some extent, left in the air, and he suggested that lotteries might go on indefinitely unless the promoters were required to specify dates. It seemed to us that there was some force in that contention, and we have therefore tabled these Amendments which provides for the inclusion of
"the date on which the draw, determination or event by or by reference to which the prize winners are ascertained, will take place."
I trust that this will, in fact, meet the point which was made by the most reverend Primate on this particular matter and will meet with the approval of the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, leave out first ("and").(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: I beg formally to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, at end insert ("and the date on which the draw, determination or event by or by reference to which the prize-winners are ascertained will take place").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (2) (m), after "by" to insert "or to". The noble Lord said: This Amendment also arises out of a point made by the most reverend Primate on the Second Reading. As I think I explained in my speech in which I commended the Bill to your Lordships, in the preparatory stages in another place a number of Amendments were made, one of which required that the tickets issued in connection with lotteries should not be sold by children. The mover of that Amendment failed to observe that it was no doubt equally necessary that they should not be sold to children. This point was made by the most reverend Primate and is obviously a good one. It was, I think, only by inadvertence that it was overlooked, and we are happy to accept his suggestion. On that basis I move this Amendment, which will provide that it will be unlawful for children under sixteen either to sell or to buy tickets in connection with these lotteries. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, after ("by") insert ("or to").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Registration of Societies]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): I am sorry to intervene but I think there is a misprint in Clause 2. I have only just noticed it. I must apologise to the noble Lord for not having noticed it before and not having drawn his attention to it. In Clause 2 (6), line 34, there is a reference to "country district". I think the technical term "county district" must be implied there. Perhaps the noble Lord would kindly look at that before the next stage and if, as I suspect, it is only a misprint, he might consider having the matter put right.
LORD CHORLEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think it is obviously a misprint of "country" for "county" and I will take steps to have it rectified at the next stage of the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: The term could not mean "rural district"?
LORD MANCROFT: No.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Exemption of small gaming parties
4.—(1) This section applies to any entertainment promoted in Great Britain for raising money to be applied for purposes other than purposes of private gain, being an entertainment at which games of chance or of chance and skill combined are played in accordance with the following conditions, that is to say:—
(b) not more than one distribution of prizes or awards is made in respect of all games played at the entertainment, and the total value of all prizes and awards distributed in respect of such games does not exceed twenty pounds:
Provided that in the case of a small card or gaming party which is the final entertainment in series of two or more such entertainments and in which the players can only participate as a result of their success in a previous entertainment or any previous entertainments there shall be substituted for the words twenty pounds herein the words one hundred pounds;
(d) the amount of the said proceeds appropriated in respect of expenses does not exceed the amount reasonably required to meet the actual cost of the facilities provided for the purposes of the games.
(4) Where two or more entertainments are promoted on the same premises by the same persons on any day, the conditions specified in subsection (1) of this section shall apply in relation to those entertainments as if they were a single entertainment, but except as aforesaid those conditions shall apply separately to each entertainment which forms part of a series of entertainments whether or not some or all of the persons taking part in any one of the series are thereby qualified to take part in any other.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (1) (b). The noble Lord said: This Amendment, and the two to subsection (4) go together and I should like to explain them to your Lordships. It will be seen that there is a proviso in paragraph (b) of the first subsection of this clause which provides that the prize, which in the ordinary way

343
would be limited to £20, may in certain circumstances be stepped up to £100. This provision was inserted in the Bill by way of an Amendment at the Committee stage in another place. Its object is as follows. I understand that whist drives and games of that kind are often continued on a kind of tournament principle. One qualifies in the first round and later there may be, so to speak, a play off. It was felt that while the maximum amount which could be provided as a prize at the first stage might well be £20, it would be not unreasonable that the prize at what one might call the grand finale should be rather higher. I gather that the object of this Amendment is to provide that at such a grand finale the prize might well be up to £100.
It has been considered by more expert authorities than I am, however, that as the proviso stands in this subsection it might well be construed as meaning that the prize of £100 could be given at the first stage or part of the first stage, or at any rate on the same day as the "heats," so to speak. So that it may be perfectly clear that that is not to be so, these three Amendments have been put down with the entire assent and good will of the Member of another place who was responsible for the Amendment in the first instance. The object is secured by removing the proviso from subsection (b) and inserting it as a separate paragraph on its own later, in subsection (4), where your Lordships will see it provided for in line 27 in the words which appear on the Paper. I hope I have made the matter sufficiently clear. The first Amendment removes the proviso from subsection (1) (b) altogether. At page 6, line 23 of the Bill we insert, what in effect is a preparatory sentence, and at line 27 of the same page we make it perfectly clear that the £100 prize is to be limited to the final stage of a tournament played on a later date, or as the case may be. With that explanation I hope your Lordships will allow me to move these three Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, leave out lines 34 to 40.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved in subsection (1) (d) to leave out "amount reasonably required to meet the actual" and insert
344
"reasonable". The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment which again is of a drafting character and for which I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mancroft. If your Lordships will look at Clause 4 (1) (d) it will be seen that it is there provided that the amount of the proceeds to be appropriated in respect of expenses is not to exceed
"the amount reasonably required to meet the actual cost of the facilities provided for the purposes of the games."
If one reads that quite strictly it is difficult to give the word "reasonably" any real meaning. The object is to provide a limit to the amount which may be appropriated on account of expenses from the proceeds of the whist drive or other entertainment. As it stands, however, the word "reasonably" does not seem to have any significance whatever, because the amount "reasonably required to meet the actual cost of the facilities provided" cannot be any different from "the actual cost". I have therefore tabled this Amendment to substitute the words which appear on the Order Paper, to make it clear that the deduction of anything more than a reasonable expenditure will be prohibited. With that explanation I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out from ("the") to ("cost") in line 3 and insert ("reasonable").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move this Amendment, to which I have already referred.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("(5) Except as provided by the last foregoing subsection, the conditions specified in subsection (1) of this section").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move the last Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 27, at end insert ("and where each of the persons taking part in the games played at the final entertainment of such a series is qualified to do so by reason of having taken part in the games played at another entertainment of that series held on a previous day (being an entertainment to which this section applies) paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1) shall apply in relation to that final

345
entertainment as if for the words 'twenty pounds' there were substituted the words 'one hundred pounds'.")—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (STREET WORKS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to give this modest little Bill a Second Reading. The Bill is commendably short, and it is so clear that I think it scarcely needs any explanation. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to explain it, and I think that I cannot do better than read to your Lordships the only major clause which the Bill contains. Clause 1 (1) of the Bill states that:
"A local authority may, if they think fit, at any time contribute the whole or a portion of the expenses incurred in connection with the execution after the passing of this Act of any such street works as are referred to in any of the following enactments, that is to say—"
Then the Bill sets out the various provisions in the five enactments to which it refers. These are the provisions which local authorities must take into consideration before they rake any action. The subsection then gees on:
"Provided that a local authority shall not make a contribution under this subsection to any person unless, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the financial circumstances of that person, they are satisfied that it is inequitable that he should bear the whole of the expenses incurred by him as aforesaid."
Subsection (2) states that:
"A reference in the foregoing subsection to any enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by any other enactment and shall include a reference to that enactment as extended or applied by or under any other enactment."
The only other matter of interest I think is contained in subsection (3), which states:
"A local authority shall not make a contribution under this section towards any expenses incurred in connection with the execution of works in any street unless they
346
are satisfied that the execution of those works is in the interest of public safety or that the street will be used as a public thoroughfare."
Subsection (4) reads as follows:
In this section the expression "local authority" means a county council or a town council other than the town council of a county of a city.
That, of course, excludes Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee.
This is purely an enabling Bill: it is permissive, and compels no one to do anything. It merely enables them to do something if they want to do it. It gives effect to the representations made by the Convention of Royal Burghs in consequence of a large number of cases of hardship which have arisen. The hardships have been suffered by people under the law as it stands at the moment. Perhaps I may give your Lordships briefly some details of the type of cases I have in mind. Some of them have occurred, and some could occur. There is, for example, the case of a house built on a private access road which has been made up to sufficient standards for the householder's use but which may, at a later date, become an access road to a housing estate. It will then be quite inadequate to carry the traffic for the housing estate. Nevertheless, the people who benefit are the people living on the housing estate and not the people who have to make up the road. At the moment, they are called upon to bear the full cost, and in some cases they just cannot do so. Some local authorities have in the past allowed roads to get into almost a dangerous state because in certain cases, owing to the poverty of the people owning the frontages, they could not enforce the Act. Though in England that difficulty is met by legislation, at the moment there is no corresponding legislation in Scotland, and there will not be unless your Lordships pass this Bill.
Another case where difficulty arises is that in which a private road can, at a later date, become the main means of access to future housing development, not necessarily an estate. It can become a short cut or a main road leading to another district. There again, the same thing occurs: the burden falls on the individual frontagers and the benefit accrues to the bigger community. Then there is the case of culs-de-sac They are often used now for parking heavy vehicles, lorries and so on, and in such

347
cases the road often deteriorates to such an extent, owing to pot-holes and the like, that it is likely to become unsafe. There again, the burden of repairing these roads up to modern standards falls on the frontagers without any corresponding benefit accruing to them. I think the equity in this matter is quite clear: the cost should be spread and should not rest entirely on the individual people who are frontagers.
There are many other cases which I could cite, but I will give only one more, which is the actual case of a householder whose house faces on to a main road and whose front door and access to it are on that main road. Because it was a long, narrow property, with a garden behind running back some seventy or eighty yards along a private road, that householder had to bear the cost of making up that road when, later, it became an access road to a building site. The householder himself did not even use it as an access. These cases cause considerable hardship; the cost of the work is often considerable. To put this right the Bill gives local authorities power to adjust matters by making a contribution when they have gone into all the conditions and are satisfied that it is right for them to do so. Those, briefly, are the reasons for which this Bill is being presented to your Lordships. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Stonehaven.)
3.29 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I am very glad that this Bill is being put forward, and I congratulate the honourable Member for North Angus and Mearns on having had the good fortune to get the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, to move the Second Reading of what he has described as "this tiny Bill", but which I look upon as a very important Bill, in your Lordships' House. Working in another place I found cases of the kind which the noble Viscount has described arising from time to time, and there was no means of remedying them because no measure of this kind stood on the Statute Book to enable a local authority to take over responsibility for making up roads. And, to my knowledge, grave hardship has been caused to people who, it would seem advisedly, had built a house but were unable to stand up
348
to the responsibility and expense of making up the frontage and footpath and other expensive adjuncts of the house.
I have wished on many occasions that the legal position was as this Bill provides for, as I say, I know that great hardship has been suffered by people in the past. So I am looking forward with hopeful anticipation to the passing of this Bill. I would emphasise to your Lordships its permissive character. I am confident that it will confer great benefits on the people affected, not only in the use of the road but also from the point of view of amenity. I think that is a matter that has to be borne in mind as well. I am grateful to the noble Viscount who has taken responsibility for the Bill in this House for putting forward the instances he has given as justification for giving this Bill a Second Reading. I am glad to say that we concur in that request, and I hope that the Bill may receive a speedy passage into law.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I rise only to indicate briefly the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards this Bill, the Second Reading of which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Stonehaven this afternoon. It meets a need that has been felt in Scotland for the past few years and which has been the subject of representations by ratepayers, by honourable Members of another place and by the Convention of Royal Burghs. As your Lordships will have noticed, and as my noble friend has already mentioned, the power which the Bill gives to local authorities to make contributions towards the cost of repairs carried out by private individuals to street works, paths, et cetera, is entirely permissive. No duty to do so is imposed on local authorities. The Government support this Bill, and we will give the noble Viscount any assistance that he may require during its passage.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, this is a matter of which I have had great experience, and I should like to say that I welcome the Bill. The matter has become much more acute over recent years, but it is a longstanding difficulty. Generally in Scotland, in the past, the method has been that the proprietor makes a road and feus off building sites on the road, one here and there; and as soon as he can he brings the whole road up to the standard required by the

349
local authority and gets it taken over by them. He waits to recover from the feuars, as they take off their sites, the cost of the road he has already expended. In many cases that I have known that has taken twenty or thirty years, and all that time the proprietor is out of his money. To-day the matter has become much more acute, because, as my noble friend Lord Stonehaven said, these corner sites lead to great difficulty. It is manifestly unfair that a man who takes a feu on a corner site should pay the whole cost of a road on both sides of his feu, which might exceed by many times the value of the land. Some method of dealing with that problem has to be found, and it is a matter of considerable difficulty.
There is only one critical remark that I should like to make, and that concerns the wording of subsection (1), where it provides that the local authority shall not make a contribution unless they are satisfied, after all the circumstances of the case, including the man's financial circumstances, have been taken into account, that it is inequitable that he should bear the whole expense. I would question that. If it is inequitable that a man should bear the charge if he is poor, why is it not equally inequitable if he is rich? What have his personal circumstances to do with it? If my noble friend could touch on that point in his reply, I should be grateful.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, the point raised by my noble friend Lord Saltoun received a great deal of discussion before the Bill arrived in your Lordships' House. It might be that the person concerned was perfectly willing to bear the whole cost, perhaps from a more or less philanthropic point of view. I do not think these words have the full significance that my noble friend gives to them. I think that we must take them in the whole of the clause, as one of the circumstances that must be considered, and not put them as bluntly as my noble friend pat them, because if we do that we get a distorted view. It is only one of the questions that a county council should take into account. At the moment, the law places responsibility fully on the person concerned, whether rich or poor. The Bill does not seek to alter that. All it seeks to do is to make it possible for the local authority, if a
350
person is really unable to live up to his obligations in the matter, to give him relief. It does not seek to alter the law to the extent of giving a rich man relief, whether it is a matter of justice or not. That is not what the Bill seeks to do, and that is the reason why this wording has been adopted in this clause.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LICENSING (AIRPORTS) BILL [H.L.]
3.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill No. 32, as first printed for the Foust, of Commons.]
Clause 1, page 1, Line 14, at end insert—
("(3) (3) Before the Minister makes an order bringing this Act into operation at an airport, he shall satisfy himself that arrangements have been made for affording reasonable facilities on licensed premises within the said examination station on the airport for obtaining hot and cold beverages other than intoxicating liquor at all times when intoxicating liquor is obtainable on those premises, and if it appears to him that at any airport where this Act is in operation such arrangements are not being maintained, he shall revoke the order in force as respects that airport; but this subsection shall be without prejudice to his power of making a further order with respect to that airport.")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to meet the demand which was voiced during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, that the hours at which intoxicating liquor may be sold to bona fide air travellers at an international airport should be extended beyond normal permitted hours only on condition that, whenever such liquor is available, hot drinks and non-intoxicants will also be available within the licensed premises. It was urged that provision for this should be made in the Bill. I think your

351
Lordships will probably agree with an Amendment along these lines. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, page 1, line 19, after ("1921") insert ("and any provision or rule of law prohibiting or restricting the sale or supply of exciseable liquor on Sunday").
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to deal with a slightly exotic point of the Scottish licensing law, and with a fair number of noble and North British Lords present, I would venture to do no more than state the facts. As at present intended, this Bill will apply only to Prestwick Airport. The licensed premises within the examination station at Prestwick are part of the airport hotel, which is able to supply liquor on Sundays to travellers at any time. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, however, might wish in the future to extend the provisions of this Bill to some other airport in Scotland at which the licensed premises do not form part of a hotel. This Amendment ensures that if the Minister of Transport brings the Act into operation at such an airport, travellers will have the same facilities as at Prestwick,
352
always provided, of course, that they are beyond the customs barrier. Again, I think this is an Amendment with which your Lordships may well agree. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE MORTGAGE CORPORATION BILL
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.
GRAYSON, ROLLO AND CLOVER DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
TYNE TUNNEL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

SUGAR BILL
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before four o'clock.