Lords Sitting of 2 June 1960

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester

ETHIOPIA AND THE NEW SOMALI REPUBLIC
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to secure the continuation of the rights and privileges accorded to the inhabitants of British Somaliland in the Haud under the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of 1954 when the Protectorate becomes independent on June 26.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, during the recent Somaliland Protectorate Constitutional Conference, my right honourable friend, the Colonial Secretary, stated to the Somaliland delegation that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the Anglo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1897, which, inter alia, provided the legal basis for trans-frontier grazing rights, should be regarded as remaining in force as between Ethiopia and the successor State, following the termination of the Protectorate; but that the main provisions of the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of 1954, which accorded the Protectorate certain facilities and powers concerning the exercise of these grazing rights, would lapse. My right honourable friend reminded the Somaliland delegation of the importance of this grazing to their economy and he suggested that it would be desirable to enter into very early discussions with the Ethiopian Government on this and other matters of common interest to both countries. The Somaliland delegation, after considering the whole matter most carefully, informed my right honourable friend that they wished to begin discussions with the Ethiopian authorities at an early
292
date. My right honourable friend welcomed this.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First, having regard to the fact that the 1954 Agreement was directly connected with the 1897 Treaty, and that most of it provided for rights and privileges to be given to the tribes and their authorities, police and so on, and that only a small part of it referred to the presence of British liaison officers, can he say why this Agreement is believed to have lapsed at all? Can he give us some explanation of that? Secondly, if it is held to have lapsed, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Representative in Addis Ababa will be given instructions to give the fullest possible support to the Somali representatives in negotiating a new Agreement—because I am sure he will have in mind what great distress and anxiety the original Agreement caused among the tribes.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as regards the first question, the point really is this. The 1954 Agreement depends upon the British presence in British Somaliland, and it is for that reason that Article III—which is the Article to which the noble Lord referred—should not be operative without the British presence. However, the Treaty of 1897 to which the noble Lord referred, does remain valid as an international Treaty. The 1954 Agreement is simply a piece of mechanics which implements the legal rights that exist under the 1897 Agreement. But the machinery depends upon the British presence, and the British presence will no longer be there.
As regards the second question, this, as I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, is a matter for the Somalis and the Ethiopians, and it is not a matter in which Her Majesty's Government can properly interfere. We have given the advice which I mentioned in my original Answer, and that advice was that they should discuss these problems with the Ethiopians; and so far as we understand they have done so.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answer, but surely it would be right for our diplomatic representative to help these Somali representatives—who are, after all, still British-protected persons—in these very

293
difficult negotiations which they are undertaking with the Ethiopian Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think the question of right or wrong comes into this. What I think the noble Lord has asked me about is the situation which will arise when British Somaliland has achieved, at her own request, independence. It is then surely for the sovereign State of Somaliland to work out these details with her neighbour, Ethiopia. In so far as we have been able, we have counselled them to discuss this matter with the Ethiopian authorities, and we understand that they have done so.

THE NEW SOMALI REPUBLIC AND THE COMMONWEALTH
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when British Somaliland becomes independent and in due course is united with Somalia, the new State will be eligible for membership of the Commonwealth.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, admission of any country to membership of the Commonwealth would be a matter for all the existing member countries.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask whether we may have an assurance that should the new independent Somali Republic seek to become a member of the Commonwealth, Her Majesty's Government would certainly not discourage them.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not think I can do any more than give the noble Lord the information which I have already given, which is that it is a matter for all the existing member countries to consider.

SIDE WINDOWS IN MOTOR VANS
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider amending section 7 of the Finance Act, 1956, to permit the installation of side windows in vans to improve visibility in the interests of road safety without thereby rendering the vans liable to purchase tax.]
THE EARL OF PERTH: No, my Lords: such an Amendment would nullify the intention of the section, which was designed to stop loss of revenue from the conversion of vans into taxable vehicles, such as estate cars.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply.

AIR SURVEY OF THE SOVIET UNION
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government Whether in their view it is legal for this country to facilitate or participate in a military survey from the air of the Soviet Union.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, as regards the over-flying of the territory of a foreign State by military or other State aircraft, Her Majesty's Government adhere to the principles of the Chicago Convention.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, us I am an ignorant person, would the noble Viscount kindly tell me what those provisions are?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: When I was a student, I was told that the Common Law rule was ab inferis usque ad caelum, which presupposes, I think, a Ptolemaic astronomy and a geocentric universe. The application of those principles has not always proved easy, and so by the Chicago Convention a step forward was made by recognising that the earth is

295
approximately a sphere; and the lateral sides of the earth's face and its bottom, if it has one, were fixed with reference to the centre of the earth.
As regards the Chicago Convention it recognises that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory, including its territorial waters. But "air space", as such, is not defined in the Convention. The Convention further lays down that no State aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without authorisation by special agreement or otherwise and in accordance with the terms thereon. State aircraft are defined as air-craft used in military, customs and police services.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what I think is a very reassuring reply.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I really must rise to thank the noble Viscount.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Perth will be making a statement on Cyprus shortly after half-past three o'clock.

SHEERNESS HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
2.12 p.m.
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they should satisfy themselves whether or not it is in the public interest to give the powers appropriate to a public Port Authority to a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1948. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do so because the point it raises is one which might not be brought before the Committee by Petition, being a point of a more general character, and also because, being of a more general character, it is one which
296
your Lordships might desire to have well examined.
Broadly speaking, the question it raises is what is the best form of port authority. Very briefly, there are at present three main forms of such authority. There are the public trusts, described by the Royal Commission on Transport in 1931 as
"the best kind of authority to own docks and harbours",
whose powers are balanced by obligations, such as to apply their revenue to improving the port, and whose membership is widely representative of the interests concerned in the port—merchants, shipowners, local authorities and the like. Then there are the former railway docks, now belonging to the British Transport Commission. That ownership has not in the past been without question, but certainly their charges are subject to very strict control, and that is obviously more a public form of ownership than would be ownership by a private company. Then there are a number of port authorities which are in fact private companies. I doubt, though, if they offer much guide to the particular case of Sheerness. Most of them are very small, and there are generally either old historical reasons, such as the ownership of property, as in the case, say, of Granton on the Firth of Forth, or a close tie with a single local industry, like Par Harbour in Cornwall.
There is a modern case of a limited company having powers of a port authority where it is closely tied to a local industry, and that is the United Steel Companies, Limited, at Workington, where the dock was transferred to that company by Act of Parliament in 1957. In that case, however, as the Act recites, over 90 per cent. of the trade in the port is related to the Workington Iron and Steel Works owned by the companies, and they have in any case the power of appointing trustees of the former harbour board. That is more nearly the case of a private harbour than a general port catering for all shipping. Two oil companies and the Angle Ore and Transport Company have certain rights to acquire land and build piers and make charges in Milford Haven, but here again it is more a matter of a single trade than of a general port such as will be developed at Sheerness. The only outstanding example of a limited company being a

297
major port authority is, I think, the Manchester Ship Canal Company. Here, however, the incorporating Act provides that if application is made to Parliament for an Act to transfer the undertaking to trustees, the company shall not oppose it but shall support it. By the Manchester Ship Canal (Finance) Act, 1904, it is provided that the majority of the Canal Company's directors shall be appointed by the Manchester Corporation, so that in practice the undertaking is under municipal control.
Those are the sort of considerations which form the background to my Motion this afternoon. I would only add, though I am sure it is unnecessary to do so, that there is no conflict to my mind between the public interest and the interest of Sheerness itself, whose development as a major port your Lordships have, I am certain, so much at heart. I beg to move.
Moved, That lit be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they should satisfy themselves whether or not it is in the public interest to give the powers appropriate to a public Port Authority to a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1948.—(Viscount Runciman of Doxford.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have been very interested in the speech the noble Viscount has made with regard to this matter. It is not very usual, although of course it is perfectly in order, to move an instruction to the Committee on a point like this. But I am rather moved by his concluding sentences, and I am sure the whole House will not want to interfere in any way with the development of Sheerness as a port. Therefore, the instruction to the Committee seems to me to be unnecessary. I suppose that in a matter of this kind the Committee which is appointed to deal with the Bill will in any case, or should in every case they deal with, take into account what is in the public interest. Otherwise it is not a matter that ought to be brought before Parliament at all, and it seems to me, therefore, superfluous to put this particular instruction. What I am most anxious to know is what is the origin of this proposed Motion. Who submits it? Is it on behalf of objectors to the Bill or to any provision in the Bill? Is it
298
by any chance a river conservancy board, or is it the Port of London Authority? I did not gather from the speech made in moving the Motion exactly where it emanates from.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: If I can reassure the noble Viscount, I am not, and never have been, a member of any port authority. I made this Motion entirely on my own personal responsibility.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I understood previously—and this is why I asked the question—that another noble Lord might have been the one who was going to move it and that there was a particular interest. However, I can well imagine that there may be some opposition, say from some neighbouring river conservancy board or from the Port of London Authority. But what I feel that the House should bear in mind, as a matter which really should be considered in the public interest by the Committee, without any such instruction as this, is what is the duty of Parliament and the Government to the inhabitants of Sheerness?
What is the position there? In 1805 the Government of the country began to build a dock, which afterwards became such a notable naval dock, and it has continued ever since then. That is a period of about 155 years. The whole township of Sheerness has depended Upon the Government work in that yard, and it has now been brought to an end. The fact that the dockyard has now been closed, and that the remaining work that had to be disposed of has gradually been got rid of, after the decision of the Government to close, has already brought depression to the town of Sheerness in the island. The average percentage of unemployment in the country at large is just over 1 per cent.—barely 1½ per cent., anyway. But in Sheerness, as a result of Government action, it is 9 per cent. Moreover, many of the men who are still employed now have to go, at greater expense to themselves, all the way from Sheerness to Chatham for their daily work.
It was a Government decision to close the yard and to sell the property to a development company, from which there is some prospect of being able to provide employment for this very important urban community in this island, so

299
affecting, of course, the livelihood of all the inhabitants in Sheerness. And if the Government approved of the Admiralty action in disposing of this property, so that there would be something done by private enterprise, to whom they sold their nationally owned dockyard, in order to assist the local population, then it seems to me reasonable that nothing should be done in the consideration of this Bill which would give to the company which has taken over the development in this island, for the purpose of helping the local people any lesser privilege in the development of the harbour in any respect than was already the privilege of the Admiralty during all their years of occupation.
I am not able to say exactly what those privileges were. From what I have ascertained by inquiry I am quite certain that no Government Department would lay down in points 1, 2 and 3 or paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) exactly what conditions should be attached to the sale of a property in all these circumstances. But I am quite sure that there is a great moral responsibility upon the Government of the day, since it was by their action, however necessary it was from a general policy point of view, that the dockyard was disposed of, to secure the proper standard of life and constant employment of the people of that place.
What is likely to arise in evidence before the Private Bill Committee, I do not know. But it seems to me that if there is opposition it is likely to be from interested companies, or from parties like the Port of London Authority or a river conservancy board, or some similar body who may fear some competition from the development of this port as a civil port. If that is so—if they fear any competition—it seems to me that when the Board of Admiralty advertised at large this dockyard, factory and premises for sale, then it was perfectly within the competence of the authorities I have referred to to have made a bid or to take over the yard. As they did not do so, it seems to me fairly clear that they are not ever themselves likely to develop the port as it should be developed.
I know something about the anchorage—naturally so, because for nearly nine years I was at the Admiralty. It is a most
300
valuable and wonderful deep-water anchorage. From a commercial point of view, if the actual dockside were advanced to a certain extent into the deep water, great ships could lie there in comfort for any length of time. It is an extraordinarily good mooring and working place for large ships. In my time some of the finest and largest ships of Her Majesty's Navy have anchored with complete safety and calm, and in perfect depth for their purpose, in the wonderful anchorage at Sheerness. I am most anxious that your Lordships ought to consider first, before anything else, what are the real interests of the people of the island who have been faced with a trade depression and increase in unemployment as a result of the Government's action in disposing of the yard and that, whatever is done in this Private Bill before it passes through its final stages in Parliament, one thought should be in our minds—namely, our moral responsibility as Parliament to see that the people of that island are able to get such facilities as will give them full employment and a decent standard of life.
The only other point I wish to make is this. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, referred rather briefly to other port enterprises. I am quite sure that he did in war time what I myself did—sigh more than once over that wonderful harbour at Falmouth which is in private company ownership. I remember flying back from Bordeaux when I had been over to negotiate with Admiral Darlan in June, 1940. One could not bring any great charge of lack of public interest in regard to the behaviour and efficiency of, and the accommodation provided by, the private dock company at Falmouth. Looking down from the air I have never seen such a collection as we had there in the third week of June, 1940. There are, of course, many other yards, docksides and ports in the country which are still under private interest. I am not one who wants at large to support private enterprise in these matters, and I am perfectly willing that in every possible case where it can be done in the interests of the whole community, such a place should pass into either local public or national public ownership. In this particular case, however, we have a Bill before Parliament, and no other public authority—not

301
one—has proposed to help this community. Where a Private Bill is introduced as a result of the Government's decision to sell to a private development company, it seems to me that we ought to do all we possibly can to give the company every possible facility.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I rise to make one brief point. I am one of those who has a very strong predilection towards letting a Select Committee get on with their job, in their own way and in their own time. Their task is to scrutinise every relevant consideration. They have learned counsel to assist them, and no lack of time in which to do it. It is not as if this Bill is leaving this House never to return. Admittedly, there is no Report stage; but there is a Third Reading, when the House has an opportunity of either giving or withholding consent. I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Runciman of Doxford that he has made his point in a short, but extremely interesting, speech and by moving this Motion. But I do not think that the wording of the instruction can, frankly, add much to the deliberations of the Committee, and I venture to hope that having made his point, as he has, he may see his way to withdraw it.
2.26 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to intervene briefly, particularly in view of what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said. He, of course, made a powerful contribution on this matter, and I was glad that he did, although in another respect—and he will appreciate that I intend no disrespect to him—I was not so glad that he did; because I hope that I do not have to assure him, or any of your Lordships, that it is precisely the kind of factor that he related that we have had in mind in adopting an attitude to this Bill, and indeed in trying to make these arrangements with the development company. It was precisely those factors which the noble Viscount detailed.
So far as the instruction is concerned, I do not think I need say much about it—though perhaps I might say that it was established as long ago as 1908 that, on the whole, it was preferable for a
302
harbour authority to be a public trust of some kind. There are, however, as has been mentioned, quite a number of exceptions to that rule which are sufficient to prove that they can work perfectly well. I should have thought that the Committee would in any case have taken that point into account, and I think that, on the whole, we all want this thing to happen, for the reasons that have been mentioned and which I need not repeat again. Therefore, I think it is for the Committee to see that the way in which this is done is the best possible way.
2.29 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I think your Lordships are accustomed to expect a few words on a Motion of this kind from the Member of the House who holds my office. First of all, I should like to say that if this were one of those instructions which are mandatory by nature—that is, if it were an instruction which would compel the Select Committee to do something, such as to leave out a clause in the Bill, or to do the reverse, then in my judgment there would be considerable objections to passing the Motion. But I should like to make it clear, as is indeed apparent, that the proposed instruction to the Committee is not of a mandatory nature. All that it instructs the Committee to do is to consider a question—namely, "whether or not it is in the public interest" and so on. They are instructed to consider that question.
I have looked up precedents which govern this matter and they all point in the direction that the Chairman of Committees usually advises the House (and I so do this afternoon) that it would be wise to accept this Motion, because, as I have said, it does no more than ask the Committee to consider the point. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I read a few lines from one of the Petitions against the Bill. I hope to show that in reality it will make just about no difference whether or not this Motion is passed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then why move it?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I am not moving a Motion;

303
I am only advising the House. The Motion says that:
"The Committee … should satisfy themselves whether or not it is in the public interest to give the powers …"
May I read three lines from paragraph 14 of one of the three Petitions against the Bill? The words are these:
"Your Petitioners respectfully submit that the grant of these powers to the company would not be in the public interest as is alleged in the Preamble to the Bill."
I noted what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and he is, of course, quite right in saying that, generally speaking, Select Committees do, as in duty bound, consider all the relevant points in a Bill. But there are opposed Bills (and this is one) where the Petitions are directed only to certain clauses in the Bills; and in that event in this House the Select Committee do not consider the other clauses. That, however, does not apply to this case, as I apprehend, because, as I have already said, the point at issue is going to be raised in any event by at least one of the Petitioners. That being so, I feel that I am justified in saying, as I already have, that in my judgment there is really not going to be any difference in the result whether this Motion is passed or is not passed.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if we accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, the effect upon local opinion surely would be that we were, in this House, specially directing the Committee—in a way, projecting the point made in the opposing Petition. I think it is quite unreasonable for the House to do so; and if public interest has to be considered because of the Petition, there is no need at all for the Motion to be moved in this House.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, on that I can only repeat
304
that the Motion directs the Committee to:
"satisfy themselves whether or not"—
and, as I have said, I am not moving this Motion but dealing with it as I believe the holder of my office should. The words "whether or not it is in the public interest" do not indicate the opinion of your Lordships' House this afternoon.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: By Lords, then why move it?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, as I have said, the precedents point to the advice being given by the Chairman of Committees that this is a Motion, not being a mandatory instruction, which might well be passed. But if it is your Lordships' wish not to pass it, then, as I have said twice already, I do not think it will make any difference.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has just said and the fact that the point to which I wished to draw attention has been amply covered by what has been said this afternoon, I shall be very happy, if your Lordships so desire and will give me leave, to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment (Privilege) made. Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
ABANDONMENT OF ANIMALS BILL
Bill read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BETTING AND GAMING BILL
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put again into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Betting office licences and betting agency permits]:
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved after subsection (2) to insert:
("( ) A betting office licence shall be granted only to the person who is in actual control of the premises.")
The noble Lord said: The point which is at issue here has already been adumbrated to some extent in the discussion which took place on the question of whether licences should be granted to corporate bodies; but this is a more particular phase of the argument. It relates to the betting office licence itself. The proposal which is made in this Amendment is that the licence should be granted to the person who is in actual control of the premises. As the Bill stands, the licence might be granted to a limited company whose office might be far away from the betting office. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the licensee shall be a person who is on the spot and has actual responsibility for seeing that the betting office is run properly.
The establishment of betting offices is a new development which the Bill intends to hedge about with certain safeguards; and it would appear that it is essential that the licence should be vested in the person who has actual control of the premises in which the betting office is situated. This has been the policy of the law for a long time with regard to public houses. The licence is granted to the person who is actually responsible for conducting the public house. That has been held to be a useful safeguard and it may well be that that particular safeguard should be adopted in regard to these betting office premises. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
EARL BATHURST: Her Majesty's Government are in agreement with the sentiment of this Amendment, which has been expressed by the noble Lord opposite, but consider that the Bill as it already stands is in accord with it. The Amendment, we feel, should not be made, first, because it is unnecessary; and, secondly, because it is not clear what exactly is meant by the noble Lord's phrase "in actual control of the premises". The intention behind the Amendment, I am sure, is that where a bookmaker owns several betting offices, the person to whom the licences should be granted should be the managers of those individual offices. The arrangement of the Bill is that the licences should be taken out by the bookmaker himself in respect of his various premises. My noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack referred to this question at considerable length in his reply on Amendment 4, and he explained the reasons why the Bill will, in practice, place responsibility for the conduct of betting offices squarely on the shoulders of the employer, where we feel the responsibility should belong. I hope that in view of what my noble and learned friend said, the noble Lord opposite may see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I confess that I am left in a state of doubt by the explanation which the noble Earl has given. He started off by saying, as I understood him, that my Amendment was unnecessary because it had already been provided for in the Bill, but he has not, in fact, explained how it is provided for in the Bill. The latter part of his observations led to an opposite conclusion: that a betting office licence could, in fact, be given, let us say, to a limited company in respect of scores of hundreds of betting offices situated all over the country. Therefore, the element of direct control and responsibility would not be there at all. If the noble Earl can satisfy me that the Bill, in fact, does provide for what I desire, I shall be only too happy to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL BATHURST: I think I can assure the noble Lord on that, because, with the Committee's permission, I

307
would re-read what my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack said with regard to Amendment No. 4 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 88), col. 144]:
"… we consider that the best way of ensuring that betting offices are well conducted is to place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the employer and not merely on his staff."
One of the effects of the noble Lord's Amendment might be that a bookmaker could take on his staff a manager, or someone of that sort, on betting premises, and if a contravention to the law should be made it would be merely that manager who would lose his licence or be fined according to the penalties laid down in the Bill, and it could be that the bookmaker would get away scot-free. Under the Bill as it stands, the bookmaker and his staff, and somebody else for that matter, would be subject to the penalties the Bill lays down. I think I can assure the noble Lord opposite that that is so as the Bill is now written.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: In view of that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Conduct of licensed betting offices]:
2.45 p.m.
LORD SPENS LORD SPENS moved, to add to the clause:
"(5) If, save in a licensed betting office or in such manner as may be prescribed on premises giving access to such an office, any advertisement is published—

(a) indicating that any particular premises are a licensed betting office; or

(b) indicating where any such office may be found: or

(c) drawing attention to the availability of, or to the facilities afforded to persons resorting to, such offices

then, in the case of an advertisement in connection with the office or offices of a particular licensee, that licensee, and in every case any person who published the advertisement, or cause or permitted to be published, shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under this subsection to prove—

(i) that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the advertisement was, and that he had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain that it was not, such an advertisement as aforesaid; or

308

(ii) if he is charged by reason only of being a licensee that the advertisement was published without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the publishing of any such advertisement in connection with his office or offices."

The noble Lord said: This is the first of three Amendments dealing with the important and very difficult question of whether or not the new betting offices should be allowed to be advertised as the person in control of them thinks fit. This question caused a great difference of opinion on the two Royal Commissions and throughout all the stages of the Bill in another place. As the Bill stands at the present moment, there is, in the appropriate Schedule, provision which regulates what notices and advertisements may be put up in the betting offices themselves and in premises giving access to the betting offices. But apart from that, there is no limitation on, or prohibition of, any sort of advertisement by those in control of the betting offices. The result has been that a very large body of opinion is fearful lest betting offices get into the control of organisations or individuals who would be in a position to carry out a high-pressure advertisement campaign.
As I understand it, the main object of this Part of the Bill is really rather a narrow one—namely, to give facilities to those who are now indulging in illegal street betting: facilities under which they can bet legally in the new betting offices. The betting offices will come into being, will advertise themselves, and will be seen by those living and working and passing to and fro in their neighbourhood; and there is very little doubt that their institution, at any rate, during the first period when the public are full of curiosity and interest, will attract to them persons who probably have not been indulging in street betting. Therefore, it is likely that, whatever else happens, there will be a certain increase in betting arising from the mere coming into existence of these new betting offices.
But that is quite a different thing from what might happen if a really intensive advertising campaign were entered into by bookmakers or organisations in control of one or more of these betting offices. And everyone can imagine what the results of the high-pressure betting campaign might be in increasing very considerably the total amount of betting.

309
I do not believe that that is the object of the Bill or what any except a very few individuals may want. I do not think that the majority of the people in this country think that, in curing this trouble over street betting, we have been dealing with a Bill which will substantially increase the amount of betting at these new betting offices.
The question is not an easy one to deal with. I think that everyone hesitates at an absolute prohibition of all advertisement and the creation of new offences if that can be avoided. The Committee will see (if I am in order in referring to future Amendments), that an attempt has been made, in an Amendment which is going to be considered by the Committee, to try to find some exception.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): I am sure it will be convenient if the Committee agree, and if you approve, my Lord Chairman, that we should discuss points that are raised on all these Amendments.
LORD SPENS: I think that that would be convenient, and it would save a number of speeches which can much more concisely be included in regard to one Amendment. We who put forward this Amendment—and I am, quite frankly, speaking on behalf of the Council of Church es—have considered what possible exceptions there can be. We came to the conclusion that it was difficult to draft them without opening the door to the very evil of which we are seriously afraid.
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Lord mind my intervening? I was proposing to deal with the second and third Amendments on advertising, but I am perfectly prepared to take my stand, if he will allow me to do so, behind him, and to support his Amendment, dropping the other two entirely. That might simplify matters.
LORD SPENS: That does simplify matters, and I will not continue to refer to the other two, except to repeat that it is extremely difficult, so far as we have found, to make reasonable exceptions, however much we should like to do so. The result was, therefore, that the question really lay between making any advertising an absolute offence, without giving any defence to the bookmaker or
310
to the controller of the betting shop, even if he knew nothing about the advertisement being inserted by other people; or, as we decided, that it should be an offence to advertise these betting offices so as to avoid this great evil, but that at the same time there ought to be a defence made available to a bookmaker or other person controlling a betting office if he had no knowledge at all of the advertisement being inserted or circulated. It is a very short point: whether your Lordships consider that there should be no prohibition at all of advertisements, or whether an attempt should be made to prevent these betting shops (which are, as I suggest, being created to cure one evil) from becoming the source of a greater evil. I beg to move.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: In putting this Amendment, may I say that, as always, it may be convenient for the Committee to discuss several Amendments at one time, save that technically, of course, only one can be before the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, at end insert the subsection.—(Lord Spens.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I do not wish to delay the House, but I should be grateful if your Lordships would allow me, before I refer to the Amendment, to say something by way of a personal, or partly personal, explanation. I particularly regret that no Bishops were present to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. Some of your Lordships observed the fact, and felt surprise—very naturally, since this is a Bill about which many Bishops, and I myself, have spoken frequently at the earlier stages, and one which raises obviously serious questions of social morality. For that reason I regret the absence of any Bishops on that occasion. I regret it also, if I may just say this to your Lordships, because recently we have taken rather special care to try to secure that on Bills or Motions raising questions of general wellbeing or public morality a Bishop or Bishops should be here in order to take part in the debate.
I wish to explain that it is never easy to secure the presence of Bishops unless we know a considerable time in advance when a Bill or a Motion is to come before the House. The Bishops are

311
widely scattered all over England, and all of them, near or far, have almost all their days—morning, afternoon and evening—very heavily booked a long way ahead; and to cancel any engagement, let alone a day's engagement, may cause disappointment and frustration, not only to the Bishop but to many other people; and it may also throw absolutely into chaos the discharge of his own duties. As I have said, we have tried very hard recently—and not without some success. We did try on this occasion of the Second Reading: we approached a number of Bishops who could competently speak on this Bill. But we tried in vain. I was myself heavily engaged in Canterbury, and had not even been told that it was on on that particular day. At least I can say this: that if we failed, I have paid the penalty for it, because I have read through the whole of Tuesday's discussions and am now here in order to make this simple personal explanation. I do genuinely mean that we regret it whenever we ever thus appear to fail in our duty.
May I now be allowed to say a brief word more?—it is not irrelevant to this Amendment, and sums up all that I want to say about the whole Bill. If the Church gives general support to this Bill, as it does, it is not because—and I have to stress this—the Church in any way whatsoever supports or encourages betting or gambling. That may seem an obvious thing to say, but I have to go on saying it to a great number of people. On the contrary, the Church regards both betting and gambling with grave suspicion; if not in themselves, then because they can do great injury to the quality of social and community life, and also do great injury to many individuals. But the Church agrees that, since neither can be abolished, it is the duty of the Government to control these activities, and to do so effectively. That is the avowed purpose of the Government in this Bill, and we support wholeheartedly their general desire to provide, by means of this Bill, a better system of control, free from some of the recognised abuses of the law as it is, and not itself such as to give further encouragement to such practices.
There is, however, a difference of emphasis between the Church and the Government, which I might put like this.
312
The Church says, "The less betting and gambling there is, the better; and we wish to see it diminished". The Government, very naturally, say something more like this, "The more betting and gambling there is, so much the worse. We do not wish to see it increased". It will be seen that there is a difference of emphasis there; and when the Government have to legislate, then a real difficulty is presented in translating their own real desires into terms of legislation which will not be such as to increase the volume of betting, or to allow additional incentives to it, or to encourage further exploitation of the betting industry. We are desirous of helping the Government in that purpose, and for that precise reason I desire to support wholeheartedly the Amendment of my noble friend—and I am particularly glad to hear the noble Lord opposite say that he is ready to make way in order that this Amendment may pass with the general agreement of those who feel as I do.
On the details of the betting business or the mechanics of this trade, I am quite incompetent to speak from any personal experience. I was happy to read that on Tuesday a number of noble Lords avowed that they had never laid a bet in their lives; and, I am happy to say, neither have I. But this Amendment requires no technical knowledge of any kind. Licensed betting offices are a new invention. They may be an improvement on the old system, or they may not: and no one can tell until they have been tried. But I would urge—and it has been urged by others—that they must be tried on their own merits, and on nothing else; and that means without advertisement. Advertisement has two purposes: either to inform or to attract, or both. As to information, there is no kind of need to tell people where the betting offices are, any more than there is a need to tell them where any other shop offering trade facilities is—and much less justification than for telling the public what it is often difficult to discover; and that is, where the post office is. In fact, if anybody wanted to know where a betting office is, he would discover it without the slightest difficulty by personal information.
The other and more general use of advertising is the desire to attract, and even entice, customers; and, as has been

313
said, the larger and wealthier betting offices would be able to advertise more extensively and more attractively, to the harm of the smaller betting enterprises. However, there is another effect of advertising which I hope we shall never allow ourselves to forget: the way in which it pre-conditions the minds and appetites of people who see the advertisements without their knowing that it is doing this to them. There is an age limit below which one cannot go into a betting house, but if young people grow up from childhood aware, consciously or subconsciously, of the attractive advertisements for betting offices and for their wares, they will then more readily accept this social evil as part of the natural apparatus of life and will be the more predisposed and pre-conditioned to adopt the habit for themselves, without knowing its possible risks. I think that there is no getting away from the fact that that must be the result of indiscriminate advertisement of betting offices and of the wares they offer. It is precisely to avoid extending the enticement or attraction, as the Government wish to do, that I trust they will accept this Amendment readily. Certainly those for whom I can speak support it very strongly. I see no counter-argument. The Amendment is in line with the Government's intention; it strengthens the general purpose of the whole Bill, and I hope that it will command general consent.
LORD SILKIN: I feel that I ought first to explain why I am not moving the Amendments that have been put down on the Marshalled List. They are, in fact, the Amendments which were put down in another place. We thought that the simplest way of raising the question of advertising was to reinstate these Amendments, which were not fully discussed in another place owing to an undertaking that was given that the whole question would be considered. When we saw the noble Lord's Amendment, my noble friends and I came to the conclusion that it was a better Amendment, which more clearly raised the issue, than our own, and we gladly withdraw ours and should like to have the discussion on the basis of the noble Lord's Amendment.
I hope that the most reverend Primate will not mind the fact that some of us who feel strongly on this matter commented
314
on there being no Bishop on the Bishops' Benches on Second Reading and, except for the most reverend Primate himself, on the first day of the Committee stage. We welcome interventions from the Bishops' Benches, especially on moral and social problems, on which the right reverend Prelates have a peculiar and most valuable contribution to make, as we heard yesterday on the question of the registration of clubs from the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, and as we have found on many other occasions. But, of course, all noble Lords fully understand the difficulties under which they labour, and we gladly accept the most reverend Primate's explanation. We will discharge him with a caution on this occasion, without a stain on his character.
On the Amendment itself, there may be some hesitation about not allowing bookmakers to state where they are. It may be thought that it is not sufficient for a bookmaker to have on the door of his premises or on the window his name and occupation; that customers will not be able to find their way to him and that there ought to be other means of giving them that information. I should have thought that there was something in it but for the fact that bookmakers are to be allowed to have runners, and if you want to know where the book maker is you have only to ask the milkman or the baker or, as I have said before, the postman, and one of them will be able to tell you. So, having regard to the employment of agents, I can see no need whatever why it should be necessary at all for bookmakers to advertise. The bookmaker will not be unique in this respect. I am in exactly the same position and so, for aught I know, is the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. People who want to come to us have to find out where we are. They have various means—the telephone book, and so on. And we do not have runners to direct clients to our premises. So it is no real hardship to the bookmaker.
There is one point on the Amendment itself. The term "advertising" is not defined. I realise the difficulty of defining it, but I should certainly like it to exclude such things as advertising on television and on screens in cinemas, and other forms of advertising, as well as in

315
the Press. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply can tell us if the term "advertising" is sufficient to cover all the different types of advertising, or whether something more is needed by way of definition. Subject to that point, which I put forward with a view to strengthening the Amendment, those noble Lords who have put their names down to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 wholeheartedly give their support to this Amendment.
3.7 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: I approach this subject from an angle slightly different from that of the most reverend Primate, because I have betted on and off throughout my life, with results that have been continually disastrous, with one or two rare exceptions. I would say to your Lordships that, grievous as it may be to us, betting and gambling is indigenous in this country. It is in the blood of the British people. It always has been, and to a far greater extent than in any other nation in the world. You will never stop betting. I want to submit that in the circumstances I think that they should not be encouraged in any way to bet further. If we take France, for example, we find that the facilities for betting are, on the face of it, much greater than they are in this country. But it is not the French people who lose their money on the racecourses and in casinos; to a very large extent it is the British people who go over there in order to do it—and succeed.
I face with some apprehension the possibility that this country may be subjected to an avalanche of advertisements encouraging people to indulge in a vice (if you care to call it a vice) to which they are only too addicted without any encouragement at all. If we add bookmakers' advertisements to pool advertisements and, as the noble Lord said, put them on the television screen and on the cinemas, this country as a result of this Bill may be subject to a torrent of advertisement encouraging people to bet even more than they do. Therefore, reluctantly, because it is alien to my natural disposition to take a severe view of any subject, I should like to say to the noble and learned Viscount that even I face with some apprehension the prospect of a torrent of advertisements encouraging
316
people to bet, and I hope that he will bear this in mind.
LORD MANCROFT: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will allow me to support him on this point. While asking the noble and learned Viscount to give thorough consideration to these sentiments, I should like to express some fear about the draftsmanship of the Amendment. I tried to draft a clause much on the same lines as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Spens, and I had to give it up as I found in my draft nothing that was foolproof. The fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Spens, has drafted a clause, and several noble Lords opposite have had a long and complicated shot at hitting this target, worries me a little, because it may turn out like this—and I have taken the opportunity of voicing these fears before: that we find produced on the Statute Book something through which an ingenious man will drive a coach-and-four in about ten minutes. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will be able to accept at least the spirit of the Amendments, with which I entirely agree; but I hope, too, that he can assure us that when the draftsman gets his more skilled pen to work he will be able to produce something that is workable and foolproof and will not be circumvented and broken five minutes after it has passed into law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I first of all add a word to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the words that fell from the most reverend Primate? I should like to add my full acceptance of what he said about the absence of himself and his brethren, and also to say how greatly we in this House have benefited from the assistance given by the Episcopal Benches on a great many subjects of social reform that we have discussed in the last few months. We are very glad indeed to see the most reverend Primate here this afternoon.
I cannot remember a more unanimous collection of voices than the speeches on this Amendment. I thought that the speech of my noble friend Lord Boothby would reach its conclusion in a slightly different way. I thought from his first premise that the people of this country were so keen on betting that he would

317
argue that it was therefore unnecessary to advertise the betting shops. That argument was implicit, if not explicit, in his speech. The only reason why I shall detain your Lordships is out of respect to the varied opinions that have been given on this matter from most responsible quarters. As my noble and learned friend Lord Spens said, it is difficult to find a matter on which there has been such a diversity of opinion. For example, there have been two Royal Commissions, and they took different views on this subject. The first one took a more severe view; and the second one I feel bound to deal with because of the respect in which I hold their conclusions.
The principle on which I approach this Bill is, indeed, a quotation from the Second Royal Commission, to which I referred on Second Reading. They said:
"… to interfere as little as possible with individual liberty to take part in the various forms of gambling, but to impose such restrictions as ale desirable and practical to discourage or prevent excess"
I think the second part of that is important in the problem before us, because the betting shops, as has been said by almost every speaker, are a new manifestation in their legal form and, therefore, we have to consider the dangers of excess in the new manifestation of a legal betting shop. If I may say a word or two as to the history, I would point out that the same difference of view was expressed in another place. On the Report stage Lord Spens' Amendment was moved from the Government side of the House, but it was strongly attacked and the Government undertook to examine the matter further.
Perhaps I might now say something about the arguments of the Royal Commission. I think the nub of the argument appears in paragraphs 440 and 441. The Royal Commission took the view that, while it may be right in exceptional circumstances to regulate the advertisement of legal business activities, restriction should not be imposed unless it can be shown that there are strong social grounds for such action. I agree with that. The Royal Commission felt that there was considerable force in the view (which applies equally to advertisements of other goods or services, for example, of alcoholic liquor) that the purpose of
318
the betting advertisements is not to increase the total volume of betting but to draw the attention of those who wish to bet to the facilities provided and to persuade them to bet with the advertiser rather than with one of his competitors. The majority of betting advertisements fall into this category; they consist of advertisements issued by bookmakers confined to a statement of the facilities offered by the bookmaker, perhaps accompanied by an assurance of his honesty and efficiency. That is the view—and I hope I put it fairly—of the Royal Commission. I think we ought to have that in front of us when we are considering the problem. The Royal Commission did, in paragraph 442, see objection in the type of advertisement in which the advertiser attempts to encourage persons to bet by holding up the prospect of large winnings, but they doubted whether its statutory prohibition was enforceable.
There is one other practical matter to which I should draw attention. Apart from the argument of principle, there is the practical argument that bookmakers who receive bets by telephone and by post have no means, other than by advertisement, of letting the betting public who wish to place bets by these methods know of the existence of these facilities. I believe—and I think my noble and learned friend would agree—that his Amendment does not strike at that; it leaves that possible. That is one of the reasons why I think it is preferable to the other Amendments that have been put forward. The limited object of my noble and learned friend's Amendment is to forbid the advertisement of the facilities of licensed betting offices, and he says that these offices will cater mainly for persons who live or work in their neighbourhood. Their existence will be known to such persons without the need for advertisement, and therefore advertisement is not necessary for licensed betting offices. Nor, since the existence of betting offices will be well known, is it likely that many owners of licensed betting offices will wish to advertise them, if it is permitted to do so. Therefore, on these two points, in that my noble and learned friend's Amendment leaves the telephone and post betting permissible but deals with the licensed betting offices, I think there is no practical objection to it.

319
The arguments that my noble and learned friend has advanced to-day are, as he said, those of the Churches Council on Gambling and the Churches Committee for Action and Evidence on the Report of the Royal Commission. The arguments are:
"If licensed betting offices are established, those who wish to see them may find them by inquiry, as is the case with any other place of business. If advertising is allowed, we consider that licensees may well use the comfort, roominess, convenience and so on, of their offices, as advertising points. This might well lead to the representation of the betting office as a desirable place of resort, quite apart from its essential purpose."
They say that this would be socially undesirable. They go on to say that although they
"… do not draw any moral distinction between the activities of small and large bookmakers, unlimited advertising by those with large capital resources, in respect of chains of offices, might well lead to that increase in betting that the Government states that it desires to avoid."
These are the two arguments. They have been strongly canvassed throughout the progress of this Bill, and I have considered them very carefully with my right honourable friend. We think that this controversy should be brought to a conclusion by the acceptance of my noble and learned friend's Amendment, for the reason that I have stated.
I have mentioned the fact that we think there ought to be permission to make the necessary advertisement, in the sense of a min announcing where he carries on his business, and, in the case of those who receive bets by telephone, what is his telephone number. We think that it should be right for him to advertise the number of the telephone and the address of the office, so that clients who wish to open credit accounts can telephone or write to him at that address. My noble friend Lord Mancroft warned me about the need for the careful drafting of this Amendment. I should like to assure him that we have considered the drafting very carefully. I cannot, after my consideration, see any carriage-road through it. If my noble friend sees one opening up, even if it is only a bridle path, I hope that he will tell me about it before the Report stage.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to the form of the Amendment? Para-
320
graph (a) forbids an advertisement which specifies that particular premises are a betting office. Paragraph (b) forbids, for example, a notice in a main street pointing the way to a betting office in a side turning. Paragraph (c) forbids an advertisement which, without mentioning any particular premises, invites the public to come to betting offices or refers to the facilities provided there. It is, however, drafted in such a way—I am sure my noble and learned friend agrees—that there is no restriction on the advertisement of facilities for telephoning or postal betting at premises which are also a licensed betting office. Your Lordships will see the point of that. That kind of advertisement has always existed, and therefore one is not extending the encouragement in that way; and I think that is right.
The saving at the beginning of the Amendment is to enable regulations to be made prescribing what may be exhibited on the outside of premises containing a licensed betting office. It is intended that there shall be a simple notice giving the name of the proprietor, and a statement of the hours when the office is open for business. Without the saving which my noble and learned friend has put in, this would be an infringement of the prohibition. I am sorry to have taken so long to announce an acquiescence, but I thought it was only fair to the Royal Commission, and to others who have taken a different view, that when the Government are departing from it—though, I am glad to say, accepting the unanimous view of the speeches in this House—that I should deal, I hope with care, with the arguments which were not accepted. I therefore advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
3.25 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: Before we pass from this Amendment, I should like to say that I think the Government have come to a most illogical decision, and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for whose logic I have great respect, should be supporting this Amendment. If you desire the end, you should desire the means. I have no interest in betting shops, and I am sorry, in a way, that they have been set up. I am not a betting man. But having gone to the trouble of producing a Bill which sets up licensed betting offices, what is the good

321
of moving an Amendment which says that the man who is going to set up the licensed betting office, who is going to pay a considerable amount of money every year for the purpose, who is going to establish an office and who is going to build up a trade, cannot tell people where he is carrying on his office which the Bill is licensing?
LORD BOOTHBY: May I answer the noble Lord in a single sentence? I am not by nature an austere character, but I think there are limits to the encouragement of indulgence. That is all.
LORD OGMORE: I suppose I am entitled to a point of view, and my point of view is that it is all part of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, quite rightly referred to the other day (and, as I say, I am sorry that he has taken this point of view to-day) as the hypocrisy in British life. If we will the act, we must will the means. You set up this thing for good or for bad—personally, I think, probably for bad. But the Government set it up, and you cannot deny the man who is carrying on the business the privilege, or the necessity, of being able to tell people where he carries on business, and what he is doing there.
Exactly the same thing has taken place with regard to public-houses. It is not the brewers who suffer from all the restrictions on publicans—they can sell as much beer as they like. They advertise beer on the television. One of the reasons why these clubs about which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was speaking yesterday have been set up is because of the unfair restrictions on the publican. I am afraid that the same sort of thing is going to happen here. The publican in this country suffers from what Bernard Shaw used to call "middle-class morality"—which might be described by a harsher term. We are going to do exactly the same thing with these unfortunate people who are going to take out licences. They are going to suffer from our sense of morality because we do give them the sort of facilities they ought to have.
I want to explain again that I am not a betting man. I do not particularly like this organisation, but I think that when we pass Bills in this country we should be logical about it, and we should carry to the logical extreme what we are intend-
322
ing to do. I do not think the Government are doing so. The fact that the Amendment is put down and accepted at this later stage shows that the Government itself rejected this idea originally, and have now taken it up only because of the pressure of the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Spens, and other people who supported him.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have seen betting shops in operation. It is perfectly easy to see them if you cross the Irish Sea by St. George's Channel. You will find them in the Republic of Ireland. Every little town has its betting shop, which may be in the main street or may not. I once went into one to see what it was like. I must say that it did not seem a den of iniquity. There was an elderly, almost completely deaf lady behind the counter with a very blunt pencil, who was taking down people's bets. There was no air of sybaritic luxury about the office whatsoever. It seemed a little business run in quite a respectable way. That is the sort of person we are going to impinge upon in this country, just as our morality throughout the ages has, to my mind, affected the ordinary licensed victualler whilst we let the brewer go scot-free. To a large extent our public-houses have suffered through the years because of that attitude. That is all I have to say. It is a highly unpopular attitude. I can see, because everybody else in the House agrees with the Government and the Opposition; but I think I ought to say it, without any personal interest in the subject.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord has mentioned the Government, perhaps I may deal with the point. I should just like to say this. For once I find myself in fundamental disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on three points. I disagree with his major premise; that when you will the end you must will the means. In this House there are three political Parties represented. I am sufficiently optimistic to believe that we all have the same ends. I should never attribute to noble Lords either in the official Opposition or in the Liberal Party any less good ends and aims than I hope I have myself. What we do disagree upon profoundly—and the health of our political life depends on our disagreeing—is as to the means by

323
which we reach those ends; and to say that because you will the ends you will the means by which you reach them is philosophically, logically, politically and in every other way a profound fallacy.
The second point of disagreement which I have with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is over his suggestion of hypocrisy. I have twice stated my approach to the Bill; it happens to be that of the Royal Commission, but I think it is a perfectly reasonable one; to interfere as little as possible with individual liberty to take part in the various forms of gambling, but to impose such restrictions as are desirable and practicable to discourage or prevent excess. It is obviously a very difficult point (because so many people I respect have taken a different view) to say whether this advertising will lead to excess. It is perfectly reasonable for a Government to consider—in fact it would be authoritarian for a Government to do otherwise than consider—the different views which are advanced. That is what we have done. I think every Party would reproach the Government if it did not give full consideration to the different views which are advanced.
The third point on which I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is in his sneer at "middleclass morality". I happen to believe that middle-class morality is one of the most priceless possessions of a civilised people. What is sneered at as middle-class morality is, in my view, trying to hold to principles of good conduct which reasonable ordinary people agree upon; and I should like to make that quite clear. I have, as I have told the Committee, a very broad back of criticism, and most of your Lordships have at some time or another exercised the right to put some criticism on that back. But on those three points I do not care how the criticism is advanced, I shall stand by my view, and I shall contend that the course which I have recommended to your Lordships is right.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his exposition. I may say that I was not sneering at middle-class morality—I hope that I have some of it myself. I was saying that this is an example of the so-called middle-class morality which
324
Bernard Shaw flayed in Pygmalion. May I ask the noble and learned Viscount, if it was so important that this element should be in the Bill, why it was not in the Bill until this late stage?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I explained that. Your Lordships will forgive me if I remind the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, of what I have already said. Here was a point on which a Royal Commission 27 years ago took one view, the view that is propounded by the Amendment of the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition. We had then another Royal Commission, whose views I tried to put quite fairly (and I hope I succeeded) before the House to-day, who took the view that advertisements were proper. Those two views were argued with great vigour in another place, and, as I told your Lordships, when the same Amendment as my noble and learned friend has put down here was moved in another place there was a very wide divergence. I have been a Minister of the Crown, except when an ungrateful country did not want me, only for a period of eighteen years. Many Members of this House have been Ministers for much longer than I have; but, when you find such a divergence of opinion as that, for a Minister not to say that he is prepared to look at it and take another chance before coming to a final conclusion is certainly different from the usual view of Ministers and different from my recollection of the admirable work as a Minister which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, displayed and which I have seen myself when he was in that position. I am sure he would have given consideration to the diversity of views. That is the reason. Again the noble Lord can say what he likes—he will never say anything not acceptable to me personally; he knows that—but I am not in the least ashamed of having taken time to consider a difficult point.
3.38 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I merely want to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question. Before asking it, I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that he does not have to cross the St. George's Channel to know what goes on in betting shops. You find them in London, and that is why I am very much opposed to them and am very much in favour of this Amendment—

325
because it will prevent people from being attracted to them. Those who want to go to them will find out where they are. Therefore the Government is accepting a very practical Amendment to achieve what I think most of us are in favour of that is, limiting betting so far as we can, without prohibiting it.
My question is this: is the noble and learned Viscount satisfied that there is no need in the Amendment to give a definition of the word "advertise"? It seems to me that we are relying entirely on the words "any advertisement". Doe that leave any loophole? Is he satisfied that it prohibits handbills, town criers or sandwich boards? The noble and learned Viscount said that they were framing this with the greatest care so as not to leave any loophole, and on this side of the House, and I am sure on that side, we are anxious that there should be no loophole and that these betting offices should not be advertised in any way. Is it not necessary to say what we mean by advertisement, so that after the Bill reaches the Statute Book some very clever person—they are very clever people who will look at this—does not find some way of advertising his premises? Is the noble Viscount satisfied?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am, because I think that the result which the noble Lord has in mind will be achieved more readily and more efficiently by leaving the word "advertisement" for the court to construe than by trying to give a definition by which, as we lawyers always say, "If we try to include the one, we exclude the other". I should think that this is the better way. But I am willing to look at the point again and to discuss it with my noble and learned friend Lord Spens. That is my view at the moment. I have not spoken to my noble and learned friend about it. I do not know what he thinks.
LORD SPENS: I should not like to take credit for something for which I am not responsible. The Amendment put down by my honourable friend the Member for Angus on the Report stage in another place was exactly in these words. I understood that he had the most expert assistance in the drafting of it. Naturally, I considered most carefully the Amendment before I put it down in my own name; but whereas in the old days I
326
used to be paid large sums to draft Amendments to Bills, those are long years ago and I should not for a moment presume to call myself a Parliamentary draftsman. If the Committee accept the Amendment, it will be on the understanding that my noble and learned friend will, if necessary, reconsider it and make any verbal alterations, if any are thought necessary, at a later stage in the Bill. Subject to that, may I thank noble Lords for the support that they have given to this Amendment and, above all, my noble and learned friend and the Government for having at last come down on the right side of the fence.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May I say one word, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore? It is possible to embarrass us by raising issues which cannot be debated here except at great length. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, talked about "middle-class morality" and about "hypocrisy". I think it was mentioned as involved in the situation. If there are two subjects more than any others to which the Church devotes itself, they are the fundamental question of morality and how to avoid hypocrisy. Hypocrisy was one charge which our Lord threw at the Pharisees. Any Church leader knows that he is always exposed to the same accusation, and I can assure the noble Lord that those of us who are active in the churches are constantly concerned about what is morality and what the true morality is, and are deeply concerned to avoid every suspicion of hypocrisy.
When the noble Lord says "middle-class morality", I should like to say that no church that I know of would agree on the definition of what is "middle-class morality". We all differ on such a definition; and if we got it we should be most critical of it when we had it, because there is no morality among any class of society which is not severely open to criticism. Because, in a sense, I am concerned in this Bill, I thought it my duty say that if we deal with this, doing the best we can in a most difficult task, which I concede the Government are doing, then we shall come to an agreement. But if great questions of hypocrisy and morality are raised we shall have to ask leave to talk at great length on it.
LORD REA: The acoustics in this Chamber are not perfect and I think the inverted commas which my noble friend put round "middle-class morality" were not understood aright. They were words used by Mr. George Bernard Shaw, and were quoted by my noble friend not necessarily as his own opinion.
LORD BOOTHBY: Perhaps I might add, for the benefit of the most reverend Primate, that this time I was on his side.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

CYPRUS
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity, before the House rises for the Whitsun recess, of making a short statement on the Cyprus negotiations similar to that being made in another place by my right honourable friend. Your Lordships will have seen Press reports according to which Archbishop Makarios considers that the remaining issues could be quickly settled. I am sure that this is right, and I hope, therefore, that the Archbishop will soon see his way to resume discussions with my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. By the Archbishop's wish, there have been no formal meetings between the leaders of the delegations for some little time. I feel confident that the points which are still causing difficulty can in practice be resolved by discussion.
The Archbishop has, in his public statement, made known the points of difference. Your Lordships will not expect me to say now what we shall say to the Cypriot leaders if, as I hope, confidential negotiations are very shortly resumed. I can say that I do not think that there is much between us on the delimitation of the boundaries of the sovereign base areas. We have done our utmost to meet Cypriot wishes on Cypriot participation in the administration of those areas, within the framework of British sovereignty. It is common ground that the areas to be retained have to serve a military purpose; military
328
considerations must therefore be given full weight, as regards both the boundaries and the administration.
On the long-term view of the Base Areas, it is difficult to foresee the circumstances in which we might want to relinquish them. This is a hypothetical situation to which many factors might apply. At present we are seeking a settlement, in which the retention of Base Areas under British sovereignty is one of the principal elements. But we recognise that the Cypriots have an interest in this matter and we shall be glad to discuss it with them.
The other main outstanding question is financial aid. On this, our offer of £10 million over five years is I think generous. We have approached these negotiations throughout in a spirit of accommodation and good will. We are sure that if the outstanding questions are tackled together in that same spirit, an agreement can very soon be reached, and for our part, we are very anxious to see such agreement.
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for giving us this statement. I feel sure that he is fully aware that we have been concerned, I think in all parts of the House, about the protracted period which has elapsed in regard to these discussions. The House at large is anxious for a good and peaceable settlement to be arrived at, and I think that it has been pretty considerate and has not tended to intervene in any way in these negotiations. But it is getting a little difficult now, unless some better progress can be made than the Archbishop seems to me to be willing to make in his public statement. I hope that the noble Earl has something upon which to go when he says that he thinks that these discussions can now be again opened for negotiation, and something obtained.
The other point about the situation that probably has occurred to many Members of your Lordships' House is that it is important to get a settlement in view of the disturbed situation in Turkey. It would be quite wrong to go into that in detail at this moment, but we greatly hope that some pressure will be brought by the Government to get negotiations opened in time. The reference to the

329
military consideration in the statement to which we have just listened makes one feel that something is being said on the other side as to requirements that the Cypriots want to lay down which might prejudice the security of our military arrangements. We should always be concerned that any arrangements we make give proper security. I hope we shall have no quibbling about small details.
LORD REA: My Lords, I believe the whole House will endorse what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. We are glad to have a statement at what seems to some of us rather long last; and a the same time we would offer our best wishes that the negotiations will go as the noble Earl would wish. There was one sentence in the statement which, if I heard it aright, and without quibbling about details, struck me as somewhat surprising:
"The Government realise that the Cypriots have an interest in this matter."
That, of course, is some advance from a few years ago when the Government indicated that the Cypriots had no interest in the matter, and I hope that that principle will not be forgotten in future.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, might I, for quite different reasons, thank the noble Earl the Minister very much for his statement? My interest in Cyprus is not at all political. My sole interest is in the fact that in Cyprus the leading political figure happens to be the head of a Church with which we are in very friendly relations. That does not mean that I approve of anything and everything he does, but it is a fact that I, on my part, wish to keep and preserve to the utmost of my power friendly relations with the Cypriot Church and its Archbishop. Because of my dilemma I am extremely grateful for the fact that there has been a statement which perhaps leads us to hope that a fresh phase may ensue.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we are very grateful for, and recognise, the forbearance of the House over these last months. I know well how concerned your Lordships have been over the Cyprus negotiations, and
330
it has certainly been a help not to be pressed on difficult questions at a time like this. On the point made by the noble Viscount about the military considerations, I may say that he can rest assured that, as I have said in the statement, in any negotiations, while military considerations, in the circumstances, in relation to base arrangements, must be the predominant issue, we are not going to be difficult on details. I believe that the record of what we have said and done so far is proof of that.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I would say that clearly after, if not before, the London Agreement, when the future—that is, independence—was charted, it was made quite clear that the Cypriots have an interest and a stake in this and that there was no new principle involved in this connection arising from the London and Zurich Agreements. I was very grateful for the words of the most reverend Primate. I know only too well, as many of your Lordships do, the interest he has had and the help he has been in this question, which, as he has pointed out, concerns another Church whose Archbishop is the leading figure in the negotiations.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while recognising the patience and forbearance of Her Majesty's Government in the negotiations over Cyprus, may I ask if they will take into consideration the question of whether there is any need of a base in Cyprus in the evolving circumstances, and whether it would not be sufficient to have merely a staging post; and whether in fact, a base would be tenable in the face of Cypriot opposition? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is in a position to inform the House as to the effect, if any, of the recent events in Turkey on the situation in Cyprus?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, of course we have taken into consideration the question of the need for a base there, not only for ourselves but for our friends in relation to our Alliances and so on; and it is quite clear to us that, in the present circumstances and situation, that is both necessary and right. I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on the Turkish situation except to say that we have already heard that in relation to this question it means no change.

BETTING AND GAMING BILL
3.55 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 6:
Increase of penalties for street betting
6.—(1) Any person who commits an offence under subsection (1) of section one of the Street Betting Act. 1906, after the appointed day shall, instead of being liable to the penalty provided by paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of the said subsection (1), be liable on summary conviction to a line not exceeding one hundred pounds or, in the case of a second or any subsequent conviction for such an offence committed after that day, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to both.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (1) to leave out "or any subsequent". The noble and learned Viscount said: I believe it would be convenient if I put before your Lordships very quickly the present position as to the penalties for street betting, the position in the Bill as it stands and the effect of the Amendment. Under the Act of 1906 the penalties are these: in the case of a first offence, a fine not exceeding £10; in the case of a second offence, a fine not exceeding £20; in the case of a third or subsequent offence, or in any case where it is proved that the person while committing the offence had any betting transaction with a person under the age of sixteen years, on a conviction on indictment a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment not exceeding six months; or on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding £30 or imprisonment not exceeding three months.
The Bill as it stands substitutes as the maximum penalties: in the case of a first offence, a fine not exceeding £100; in the case of a second or subsequent offence, imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £200 or both. There is no provision for the offence to be dealt with on indictment. During the Committee stage in the House of Commons, and again during the Report stage, Amendments were moved to omit the possibility of awarding a sentence of imprisonment, while raising still further the maximum limit on a fine for a second or subsequent offence. Those who supported the Amendment argued that the men who took bets in the street were mostly book-
332
makers' agents rather than principal bookmakers and were thus men in a small way of business. It would be unfair (the argument went on) that "small" men acting merely as agents for others should be liable to be imprisoned.
The practice at present when street agents (or "runners") are convicted under the Street Betting Act and fined is for their fines to be paid by their principals. Hence, the argument went, the raising of the maximum fine which could be awarded would be more effective as a means of suppressing street betting. The argument on the other side which appealed to Her Majesty's Government and appeals to me is that, in fixing maximum sentences, it was necessary to think, not of the typical or average case, but of the worst type of case that it was possible to foresee. It had to be remembered that the principal bookmaker himself might be charged and convicted as an accessory. Although, if he was a wealthy man, he might be wilting to risk having to pay several hundred pounds by way of a fine, he would not be likely to take the risk of a sentence of imprisonment. Thus it was necessary to retain the penalty of imprisonment as an ultimate sanction to deal with the worst case of a principal bookmaker who is a persistent offender.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary undertook to look at the matter again and the Amendments that we suggest have the effect of retaining the ultimate sanction of imprisonment for three months, but reserving it for a third or subsequent offence, so that it cannot be awarded for a second offence. The Committee will remember that, under the Act of 1906, it can be awarded for a third offence. In fact, under the Act of 1906 six months' imprisonment could be given after a trial on indictment instead of the three months which we maintain. We believe that it is necessary to maintain imprisonment as a deterrent; that it will deter in the case of a third or subsequent offence—it will deter the persistent offender, including, as I say, the principal bookmaker who is convicted as an accessary and who persists in his illegal activity. I hope that the Committee will think that the relaxation from a second to a third offence is as far as we can go to meet the other point of view. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, leave out ("or any subsequent").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STONHAM: I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that this, as it were, spreading the penalty into three stages instead of two is to some extent an acknowledgment of the commitment which his right honourable friend entered into in another place. But, quite frankly, when I read that this was one of the three matters on which the other place would welcome your Lordships' advice, I thought that that meant that they would like our advice with regard to the reduction of penalties to be inflicted on street bookmakers. In fact, this Amendment, although it spreads the penalties into three instead of two stages, makes no reduction at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It means that the bookmaker who is convicted as an accessary cannot be sent to prison for a second offence; he has to commit three offences.
LORD STONHAM: I quite agree with that; but the noble and learned Viscount will agree that the minimum maximum penalty (if I may use that expression) is £100; the maximum penalty is still £200 or three months' imprisonment, or both. That compares with the penalties which are at present in existence of £10. £20 or £30. with an alternative of imprisonment.
I should like to make it quite clear that in this matter I am speaking entirely for myself, and I do not know whether my noble friends, or your Lordships in any other part of the House, will agree with me. I should also make it clear, as has been said by almost everyone who has spoken in every section of the deliberations of this Bill, that I am not a betting man. My personal view is that that is no kind of a recommendation for the acceptance of one's advice on a betting Bill. I should, therefore, make it quite clear that I am not opposed to betting. Provided that one pays the rent and looks after one's wife and children, I think one may then be able to do what one likes with the rest of one's income.
I well remember that the last bet I had was in the Grand National, quite
334
some years ago. I remember the horse—its name was "Gyppo"; I backed it because it was a grey (I can see greys, and I cannot see the others), and because it could jump. I had the vain hope that the others might all fall down and that this one might win; and at odds of £1,000 to £25, it was quite attractive. My honourable friend, as he then was, Stanley Evans, put the bet on because I did not know a bookmaker. He subsequently told me that it was better not to put on a "pony" but a "monkey", because then it would have got over the jumps; and it was only later that I learned that a "monkey" was £500, and I was glad I had not accepted his advice.
I am not exactly an expert; I am not completely disinterested. But I have seen street bookmakers, and I am quite sure that the noble and learned Viscount would think even less of me than he does if I failed to speak what I think is the truth. The truth, as I see it, is this. We have very large numbers of street bookmakers who are fulfilling what the general public regard as a service. Regardless of whether it is a moral service or otherwise, the general public like it. The Government, in this Bill, have decided to get rid of it. Again, I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong. But if in deciding to get rid of it the Government propose to lay down excessive penalties—perhaps not excessive; but large, prohibitive penalties—then an obligation rests on us to ensure that those street bookmakers have reasonable facilities for translating themselves into some other kind of bookmaker which is approved of by this Bill.
I am very much concerned by the fact that this Bill does not provide those facilities, or not in the measure which is required. I have heard my noble friend Lord Silkin talk about the need for getting planning permission for betting offices. What is going to happen? It is a very simple process. The street bookmaker will look round for a place in the vicinity where he works in which he can set up a betting office, in order to comply with the law. In many of the poorer quarters of London that will be a very simple and comparatively poor establishment. If that is acceptable to the terms of the Bill, then I have no objection to

335
any penalties whatsoever, however severe they are. But if, when this Bill becomes law, it means that it is going to be excessively difficult, if not impossible, for these men to continue to ply their trade, which would then be a legitimate trade in accordance with the terms of this Bill when it becomes an Act, then I think we are doing ourselves, and them, a considerable injustice. I would say that these large penalties would then be seen to be an expression of the Government's fear of failure. They would, in fact, be a perpetuation of injustice.
It is all very well to say, "They are only bookmakers. Who cares?" But I do not think the noble and learned Viscount would take that view at all. Therefore, I want to put it to him quite plainly. I am in this case talking of something of which I know, and I should like some assurance from him that, within the terms of the Bill or of the instructions which are likely to be issued (or, if not instructions, the guidance which is likely to be issued) to the appropriate authorities, they will not be extremely hard-and-fast with regard to granting planning permission for particular types of premises to become betting offices where persons can establish that they are already in business as street bookmakers. If street bookmakers can go from the street into a place and conduct their business in accordance with this Bill, then I imagine that no one would suggest that we should be wrong to impose severe penalties on them if they did not make that change. But if it is going to be extremely difficult, and almost impossible, for them to carry out the instructions of this Bill, then I would say that it would be a gross injustice and would really be a means of covering up our own failure if we then provided very severe penalties.
The noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, compared with the present practice means merely that, instead of a man being fined a maximum of £10, he can be fined a maximum of £100 or £200. But in practice, if it should prove that bookmakers cannot reasonably convert their place of business into licensed premises, for reasons of technical objections about planning or otherwise, then the public will not support the Act of Parliament; they will support the bookmaker. Equally, the police will not sup-
336
port the Act of Parliament; they will support the bookmaker. They will find this section of the Act just as unworkable as existing legislation, and we shall be confronted with exactly the position which we have now: that the police do not enforce the 1906 Act; that they arrange for people to be arrested for the convenience of bookmakers and to satisfy the records in their own areas; and that they take the appropriate consideration for such a service. In fact, we shall have a continuation of the old, evil practices of which we are all aware.
I think that this all arises out of the decision of the Government not to license street bookmakers, which I think was a wrong decision. That decision having been made, it is no use discussing it any longer; but I ask the noble and learned Viscount to say now whether, in asking us to agree to these very severe penalties, he is satisfied that, when this Act becomes law, there will be proper opportunity for legitimate street bookmakers who are honestly carrying on their business to transfer themselves from the street to an office in the near vicinity of the place where they are at present carrying on their business, and that they will thus be able to comply with the terms of this Bill when it becomes an Act. If he is satisfied of that, then I can see no objection to severe penalties: if he is not satisfied of that and cannot give the assurances for which I have asked, then I think it would be utterly wrong and utterly unjust to demand these penalties.
LORD CONFSFORD: I express no view at all on the interesting question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as to whether street bookmaking should or should not be allowed. I think that is an interesting question, but it is not relevant on this Amendment. I rise simply to express some astonishment at the proposition of law or fact which he has now advanced: that one can have a vested interest in an illegal activity entitling one, when new legislation conies in, to demand facilities.
LORD STONHAM: That is a fact.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think my noble friend Lord Stonham is assuming that everybody who is liable to penalties in respect of betting in the streets is a principal and not an agent.

337
If all the agents who are engaged on this activity—and they are extremely numerous—are going ipso facto to become eligible to obtain licences as bookmakers, it will be quite astounding: but, in fact, the vast majority of them are employees who are collecting bets on behalf of bookmakers, and it is to be assumed that the bookmakers will continue to find employment for them in other capacities after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the major point of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that he disagrees with our solution, he would not wish me to follow him, nor would he think me discourteous in abstaining from doing so. But I appreciate the particular point that he has in mind: that is, that we are wanting to free betting from being carried on in the illegal way which brings the law into disrepute. That is our objective; and it will be necessary to see that the new channel is functioning if we hope to get rid of the evil (whether we are right or wrong in thinking that it is a bad method of doing it) of illegal street betting.
Now I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, of subsection (2) of the clause we are amending. That says:
"The day appointed for the purposes of this section shall not be earlier than six months after the day appointed for the coming into force of section four of this Act."
That is the clause which provides for betting office licences and betting agency permits—and it is a matter for my right honourable friend to appoint when that comes into operation. But, whenever that may be—and, of course, one wishes first of all to give people a reasonable chance to get the offices—then the scheme of the Bill is that there should be a delay before these additional penalties are enforced, in order to give that a chance of functioning.
I should like to consider carefully what the noble Lord has said about guidance as to the premises. As he will remember, when I was Home Secretary—and it applies a fortiori to-day—I was always most careful to leave the independence of justices unfettered; and he has often heard me, when pressed in another place to issue circulars and to
338
give guidance about offences, steadfastly refuse to do so. This is a different matter, because I appreciate that the basis of his argument is that here the justices are acting as licensing justices in the case of liquor, in a quasi-administrative, as well as quasi-judicial, function. I think it is a point of great importance, and I should like to consider that and discuss it with Mr. Butler. I am grateful to him for raising that point. There are always difficulties when you are dealing with a discretionary matter, but I should like to give it consideration before the next stage.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. He will appreciate as well as I that, while accepting everything he says about the inadvisability and the undesirability of giving guidance to or of exerting pressure on licensing justices, it is the case that words that he may utter in this connection carry great weight, and, indeed, may be considered and put forward when these matters are discussed before licensing justices. The kind of thing I have in mind is this: in, shall we say, the poorer districts, the more densely populated quarters of London (and other big cities, so far as I am aware), there are more street bookmakers than in other areas with the same population or even a more dense population. By reason of that: fact, there are likely to be more applications in such areas, and they are likely to be for approval of less palatial premises. Therefore, unless that fact is taken into consideration and there is some reasonable hope of equality of treatment, there is likely to be injustice: and, if there is injustice, it would be hateful to all of us that the victims of such injustice should then be the subject of heavy penalties. That is the only point of my opposition (as you may call it), or question. If the noble and learned Viscount has that point in mind and will give it due weight, then I am satisfied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I certainly shall do that. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the type of premises must vary according to the locality; and not only the needs of the locality, but what the people in that locality would expect, and what would be possible according to the premises available. I am in entire sympathy with

339
him there. I think that to set up absurdly high standards would be to defeat the object of the Bill. I hope that what I have said is helpful.
LORD STONHAM: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. That entirely meets my point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I bee to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35 after ("day") insert ("to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or, in the case of a third or any subsequent conviction for such an offence so committed").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Betting with young persons
7.—(1) If any person—
(b) employs a young person in the effecting of any betting transaction or in a licensed betting office; or
(c) receives or negotiates any bet through a young person, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this subsection by reason of—
(i) the employment of a young person in the effecting of betting transactions by post; or
4.23 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "young" and after "person" insert "who is under the age of twenty-one years". The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble Leader and my noble friends, I beg to move Amendment No. 19. I hope that it will be convenient to your Lordships to take with it Nos. 20 and 21, which concern the same point. A little while ago the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, brought in question the logic of the Government's decision on an earlier Amendment, but this is a totally illogical Bill. In one discussion, we find ourselves on opposite sides of the fence, and in the next discussion on the same side. I am afraid that this Bill is going to bring a considerable extension of betting, and I am proposing these Amendments in order to limit that so far as possible, having originally
340
accepted the need to make legal something which at present is illegal—that is, cash betting. In these three Amendments, my noble friends and I seek to ensure that no one under twenty-one shall take part in the business of betting. It is already laid down in the Schedule that no one under the age of twenty-one can take part in the business of betting as a principal. I hope that the Committee will agree that no one under the age of twenty-one shall be engaged in betting as an employee.
It may be argued: what harm is there in a young girl who comes from a commercial training college at the age of sixteen or seventeen, being engaged in a bookmaker's office any more than in a stockbroker's office or any other office? What harm is there in a young lad of eighteen making tea in a bookmaker's office, cutting the cake, calling the runners off the tape and doing all the other little jobs which have to be undertaken? I do not accept that. It is unquestionable that if a young person is engaged in a betting office in any capacity, he will inevitably be drawn into the exciting net where there is talk of gambling, speculation on what is likely to happen and perhaps regrets for what did not happen after the event. I think that under twenty-one is much too young for people to be constantly engaged, every day of their working lives, in the hothouse atmosphere of gambling.
It is laid down in the Schedule that no one under the age of twenty-one can have a bookmaker's licence. That is for a very good reason. We do not want them to get into the bookmaking business too young. If that is accepted for a principal, what possible justification can there be for permitting the employment of young people in a subordinate capacity in bookmakers' offices? If it is wrong for people under twenty-one to become bookmakers, why should it be right for people under twenty-one to become bookmakers' assistants? Just imagine what goes on in a betting office. At 2.20 the runners come through for the 2.20 race, and it is announced. At 2.21 they are off and on the tape. At 2.22, if it is a five-furlong sprint, the results are up. It is all very well to say that all this atmosphere is confined to the punters. It is also communicated to the people

341
engaged in the business. If you think that your mission in life is to work in a betting office in that kind of atmosphere, well anti good; but surely we have a responsibility to see that people should not have to make that decision too young. I think that the noble and learned Viscount will appreciate the thought behind these Amendments and I hope that both he and your Lordships will accept the view that these alterations should be made to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 43, leave out ("young") and after ("person") insert ("who is under the age of twenty-one years").—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL BATHURST: I think that it would be to your Lordships' convenience if I answered the noble Lord on Amendments No. 19, 20 and 44. The noble Lord mentioned No. 21 but I am sure that he will appreciate that that deals with postal betting and that it would be more convenient if I speak about that later.
LORD STONHAM: I agree with the noble Earl that it is a different point, and I apologise for my mistake.
EARL BATHURST: Clause 7 makes it an offence for a person to have a betting transaction with a young person, to employ a young person in the effecting of any betting transaction or in a licensed betting office, or to receive or negotiate any bet through a young person. Under the Schedule, it is one of the rules for a licensed betting office that a young person shall not be admitted or be allowed to remain on the premises. The age limit in the Bill for all these purposes is eighteen, and the Amendments propose to substitute twenty-one as respects the offence of having a betting transaction with a young person—that is the offence I have just mentioned. On the other hand, the noble Lord's Amendment would allow a young person to place a bet at the age of eighteen. The appropriate age limit for these provisions is largely a matter of opinion. The noble Lord has an opinion, and he has expressed it. The age limit recommended in the Royal Commission's Report is the age of eighteen for a young person. In paragraph 256 they recommended that a registered bookmaker should not be allowed to employ any person under the age of eighteen; and although the prohibition on employment in the Bill does not go so far as to forbid
342
employment in every capacity, as the Royal Commission suggested, the age of eighteen follows their suggestion.
LORD STONHAM: If I may interrupt the noble Earl, I tried to make it clear that my Amendment had not the object of preventing a young person of eighteen from having a bet. The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that the person with whom he bets shall not be under twenty-one.
EARL BATHURST: I appreciate that, and, in fact, I think I made it clear in my opening preamble. In sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 263 the Royal Commission recommended that it should be an offence for any person under eighteen to enter a licensed betting office and for a bookmaker to bet with any person apparently under eighteen years of age. The Bill follows this recommendation exactly. It is already an offence under Section 15 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, for a bookmaker to employ a person under the age of eighteen on the course or to have a betting transaction with a person under that age. There is also a precedent for the adoption of the age of eighteen in the Licensing Act, 1953. That Act provides that a young person under that age may not be employed in any bar or licensed premises, and that intoxicating liquor may not be served to a person under that age for consumption on the premises. There are thus precedents for the adoption of the age of eighteen.
The question whether the higher age should be substituted is largely one of judgment, but it is doubtful whether it would be practicable to insist on the higher age limit which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would like to see. Many people between the age of eighteen and twenty-one have reached degrees of maturity, and, regrettable though it may be that such persons may wish to indulge in betting, it does not seem feasible to attempt by law to deny them facilities for doing so. We heard yesterday, in what I am sure all your Lordships will consider was a great debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, a number of noble Lords say how young people were maturing earlier in these days.
LORD STONHAM: If the noble Earl will allow me, I said they were more

343
mature outside but far younger inside than we were, and needed our protection far more.
EARL BATHURST: They may be maturing more outside and less inside. We did hear harsh criticisms on young people, but I know there are Members of your Lordships' House and members of the public who under the age of twenty-one were entrusted with the lives of men in their platoons. They have had to deal with every sort of problem in the solution of which, supposing they had had the wisdom which they accumulate in time, perhaps, in your Lordships' House, they might have been seriously affected. One can think of young people up and down the country in the Services to-day, and in civil life as well, driving cranes or motor lorries and so forth, all of which involves a great deal of responsibility. I think that is a considerable reason for putting forward a plea to the noble Lord. It would be difficult, for the reasons I have just put forward, to consider a person under twenty-one as suitable to carry on such responsibilities as I have described, and yet at the same time deny him the right of working, should he so wish, for a bookmaker.
If this is recognised, it is difficult to justify excluding punters of this age group from licensed betting offices. The adoption of different age limits for different provisions of Clause 7 would give rise to strange anomalies if the noble Lord's proposal were carried out. It would be an offence under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) for a young person over eighteen but under twenty-one to be used to take a bet from the punter to a bookmaker, yet the same young person could on his own behalf place a bet with a bookmaker. That is just one of the anomalies which the noble Lord's Amendment would create. The Government respect the sincerity of the noble Lord for his views and his desire to protect young people from too early indulgence in the betting habit, but this series of Amendments is not one which we can advise your Lordships to accept.
LORD SHEPHERD: Like many noble Lords who have taken part on the Committee stage and on Second Reading of the Bill, I can also claim not to be a betting man. I have had one bet and,
344
unlike my noble friend Lord Stonham, I was successful; I won some money on "Quare Times" in the Grand National. I rise to support my noble friend on this Amendment. In his reply, the noble Earl laid great stress upon the maturity of our young people to-day. He made play—and with some truth—of the fact that we have in time of war placed men of seventeen, eighteen and nineteen in command of troops. But when those men were placed in that position they had had training; they were trained to carry out an operation; and they had mature officers behind them. With due respect to the bookmakers, surely the noble Earl is not going to suggest that a bookmaker is in the same degree as the commanding officer of a battalion or a company. Bookmakers may be, in their business, honourable gentlemen, but there are some of us who feel that it is a business which is—not necessarily shady, but at any rate one where there is considerable temptation.
I share with my noble friend Lord Stonham a feeling that young men or women under the age of twenty-one ought not to be employed in this type of business. We know that under the Bill nobody under the age of twenty-one can be a principal. According to the Bill, a youth over eighteen may be employed. But what is the position of the agent? As I understand it, a youth over the age of eighteen can be an agent. Am I right? I understand that an agent, the tout who negotiates business on behalf of his principal, need only be over the age of eighteen. As your Lordships know, in business it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between a principal and an agent.
LORD STONHAM: It is harder in bookmaking.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is probably the case. But in business he is a principal because it is his finance, his capital, which is at stake; but his agent will negotiate and conclude the business. In this, I might be prepared to go some way with the Government in saying that the clerks and the typists in an office could be under or above the age of eighteen, but I would submit most strongly that a tout should not be employed below the age of twenty-one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that there is a difference of view

345
here. We have considered this point very carefully, and I am sure my right honourable friend will consider the arguments advanced. But we feel that eighteen is the proper age, and I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have raised a new point as far as the age of an agent is concerned. Would the noble and learned Viscount give an undertaking that he will look into this matter to see whether, if they cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, they could agree to bringing in a higher age limit for the employment of agents?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot give any commitments at all, but I will willingly bring that point specially to the notice of my right honourable friend, and we will consider it. But as the noble Lord will understand, I cannot give him any commitment on the matter.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount and to my noble friend for putting that point so well. I appreciate there is no undertaking, but on the noble and learned Viscount's assurance to look at it again I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAMhad given Notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1), to omit proviso (i). The noble Lord said: Having listened to the very eloquent argument of the noble Earl on the previous Amendment, despite the fact that this is on a somewhat different point, and having regard to the fact that the Government will not agree that people who assist bookmakers in offices should be at least twenty-one years of age, it seems to me that they will not agree that people who assist in betting by post, making up the envelopes and typing the bets, should be at least twenty-one years of age. Therefore I see no useful purpose in taking up your Lordships' time in moving this Amendment separately, so I will not move it.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
346
".Every holder of a bookmaker's permit or licence or of a betting agency permit shall deliver to the authority issuing such permit or licence once in every year on a date to be prescribed a statement showing the total turnover of the business conducted under such permit or licence."
The noble Lord said: If I may, I will discuss this Amendment and the following Amendment together, as they are closely related. It is provided in Clause 10 that information shall be published of a statistical character with regard to the grant, renewal or cancellation and expiry of bookmakers' permits. It is obvious that bookmaking is an extensive business in which large sums of money change hands in the course of a year, and it is something of considerable social importance. That is one of the underlying bases of this very Bill. But there is no provision by which any exact ascertainment can be got of one of the most important statistics relating to this business, and that is the amount of the annual turnover—the total amount of money which is staked during the course of a year. Therefore, the purpose of the first Amendment is to provide that the holders of bookmakers' permits or licences, or betting agency permits, shall deliver to the licensing authority every year a return stating what the turnover of the business conducted under the permit is.
Similarly, the proposed Amendment to Clause 10 provides that this information shall be included in the annual statement which is laid before each House of Parliament. I hope it will be agreed that this information is useful and has considerable social importance. It has importance in another respect, because if, following the recommendations of the Peppiatt Committee, some measure is introduced at some time for the purpose of levying taxation upon betting, it will be important to know what sums of money would possibly be involved in that. For those reasons, I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9 insert the said new clause — (Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE EARL OF BATHURST: It might be convenient if I intervene in the debate upon this Amendment to tell the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the problem which he has put before us and would like to consider

347
the purport of it. I should like to mention paragraph 189 in the Report of the Royal Commission, which says that
"as much information as is practicable should be made available to the public about the extent of gambling, and, wherever possible, the conduct of the various forms of gambling."
The noble Lord mentioned Clause 10 under which a report is to be put before the two Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord's Amendment is open to detailed difficulties of interpretation, as I am sure that fie and his noble friend will appreciate. In particular, it is not clear what precise meaning can be given to the word "turnover". Many bookmakers lay off bets on a particular horse or other contestant which has been backed heavily, by placing "hedging" bets with other bookmakers. Such a bet would be part of the turnover of the second bookmaker, but does not represent any new betting business from the general public. An accumulator bet involves a combination of predictions on a number of events. If the prediction on the first event is correct, then the winnings are transferred to the second event, and so on. It is not clear whether the word "turnover" includes merely the original stake or the winnings, if any, on the successive stages of the accumulator. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, this accumulator betting is becoming very popular all over the country.
These criticisms could no doubt be removed by more careful definition. For example, bets between one holder of a bookmaker's permit and another could be excluded. That would probably look after the "laying-off" which I have just mentioned, and in the case of an accumulator it could be stated that it is the original stake only which is counted. But the main question is whether it is practicable for this information to be obtained. The Royal Commission evidently did not think it would be so: otherwise they would have added it to the recommendations which they made. My right honourable friend understands that bookmakers, generally speaking, do not compile this information at present, and there has been insufficient time since this Amendment was put down for an assessment to be made of the amount of work involved to bookmakers and the Home Office and Scottish Home Depart-
348
ment in obtaining the information which the noble Lord's Amendment seeks. It is a question of balancing the expense of obtaining the information, which is not available at present, against the benefit to be obtained from the information if it were to be given. If the noble Lord will allow my right honourable friend and my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack to consider this Amendment, we should be grateful if he would withdraw it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I appreciate that there are some technical difficulties in this matter, and if a provision of this kind was to be inserted it would need to be redrafted. I hope, however, that some provision covering the point will be found possible. I appreciate that bookmakers probably do not keep statistics of this kind at the present moment. However, they are being presented in this Bill with a legalisation of business which has been carried on hitherto in an illegal fashion; for which they have been paying the fines imposed upon their runners. They are therefore going to make a clear saving in carrying on their business, and it is not unreasonable that in a matter of such social importance as this is they should be required to comply with certain conditions. On the undertaking which the noble Earl has given, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
LORD UVEDALE OF NORTH END LORD UVEDALE OF NORTH END moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
".After paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section three of the Pool Betting Act. 1954, there shall be added the following paragraph—
'(ee) No prize in respect of any bet in any competition shall exceed the sum of £50,000.'"
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I would say that pool betting in this country is, to my mind, the most fantastic thing that was ever put before an intelligent public. I have in my possession at the present time a sheet from Littlewood's which points out that the first prize one week was £50,000. You can take it that the prizes altogether were roughly £100,000. The price of the sheet is five shillings. The chance of a

349
man getting one of these prizes is one in 200,000. How is it possible for a man to bet when the chances against him are 200,000 to 1? Men do bet, and hundreds and thousands of people bet in this way. The reason is that they say to themselves, "Mr. So-and-So won £50,000 last week and I had an equal chance with him. It could just as well have come to me as to him. Therefore the chances are fifty-fifty". Another thing that appeals to people is this sudden change overnight from poverty to affluence. The chance may be almost infinitesimal but the chance is there. As to limiting the prize, this, of course, has been done in the Irish Sweep; they have limited the maximum prize there. This is just a modest step to limit the prize to £50,000. Some noble Lords may hold that it is too much for a maximum, and others may hold that no maximum should be imposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Uvedale of North End.)
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I should like to oppose this Amendment, because, unlike so many noble Lords who say they do not bet, I confess to betting—not successfully, but I do bet. One of the most agreeable forms of betting in the winter is trying to prognosticate the impossible results of the Football Leagues. I am therefore a confessed member of what they call the Happy Circle. But I fully appreciate the words of Robert Louis Stevenson when he said:
"It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive."
Frankly, I have never experienced the arrival part of it, but I still travel hopefully every week-end in the winter, living to win one of these prizes.
Noble Lords will realise that the complications of football pools automatically make you try to get one of these permutations, and no sooner have you started on permutations than the sum invested becomes very big. Consequently syndicates are being formed all over the country who together make very big investments which are spread over many people. In fact, the other day I was asked by one of the great firms to present a cheque for £200,000 to a collection of airmen, and in the end they got only about £8,000 each because there
350
were so many in it. It shows the sort of thing that is going on; it does not mean necessarily that all this money goes to one person. I see no great objection, at any rate from a personal point of view, in changing from poverty to affluence, which was one of the objections raised relative to the paying of this great sum. I think it is rather an interference in a business which is, after all, run pretty satisfactorily throughout the country. It is not for your Lordships here to lay down how a great bookmaker's business should be run. It is just as logical for us to pass an Amendment to this Bill that all bookmakers should pay on the first four in every race rather than the first three. It would seem a gross interference in the way a bookmaker's or betting establishment is run. There is no demand for this at all, and I consider it would be an interference which is not justified in any way at all.
LORD FOLEY: I feel rather strongly about the Amendment. It seems to me that the whole Bill is presented by the Government to bring the question of betting up to date and in line with the need of modern requirements. Therefore, I feel that the Amendment is out of touch with the Bill as a whole. I do not see why pools should be limited. I do not believe that the public want them to be limited. A certain amount of the glamour of the pools would be lost by a limitation of this nature. I do not suggest that betting is necessarily a good thing. I do not do the pools myself, but to the average man in the street the excitement of possibly winning a large sum of money is glamorous. Possibly pool betting would decrease, and therefore the Government would lose a certain amount of revenue, if a limitation were imposed.
I am under the impression that people who win large sums on the pools do not necessarily squander them. Committees of experts are arranged by the big pool companies whose advice and opinion can be given to winners of large sums of money, I understand that most people who win these sums invest the money wisely and do not fritter it away. Bookmakers give enormous odds for the first three horses in a race, and we might as well ask bookmakers to limit the amount of money which they pay out.

351
For all these reasons and because limitation would be unpopular, this is not a good Amendment and I am strongly opposed to it.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to say a word in favour of the Amendment, particularly because I felt that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was incompatible with the whole object of the Bill, which is to place certain restraints on this form of activity. He was, in effect, arguing that it should be left completely free for people to do what they like in regard to the running of betting businesses. The whole philosophy of the Bill is that within limits it is the sort of business which should be checked and controlled in the interests of the public as a whole. I should have thought that the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Uvedale of North End, was well within the scope of that sort of outlook. Fifty thousand pounds is a very large prize. As my noble friend pointed out, in the case of the Irish Sweep it was found, after a good deal of experience, reasonable to limit the prize. My noble friend has made a good proposition for a limitation of this kind, which is within the general policy of the Bill.
5.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that I approach this matter from a slightly different angle from those hitherto adopted. The position is that the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, which reported in 1951, devoted a chapter to football pool betting, and in paragraph 321 recommended a number of detailed controls and restrictions upon the conduct of such competitions. These recommendations, with exceptions and variations, were carried into effect by the Pool Betting Act, 1954, which was the result of a Bill introduced into the House of Commons by a Private Member. Although the Royal Commission had reported in favour of the principle which the Amendment exemplifies, that was not one of the matters that was put into effect by the Act of 1954. The position was that not only the mover of the Bill, but the House of Commons, addressed their minds to this matter and decided not to insert this limitation. Whichever view is right, it is clear that it is a highly controversial matter as to whether
352
there should be a limit. I should have thought that it is by no means certain that the people who take part in football pools, notwithstanding what the Royal Commission said, are mainly or even largely averse to the possibility of the payment of large prizes. Everyone has agreed on the psychological diagnosis of this matter, including Lord Uvedale of North End, Lord Brabazon of Tara and Lord Foley. It is the perpetual "Cinderella" story in human nature that a person loves to imagine that he may be the one to whom the fairy godmother appears. I shall not pursue that analogy. I merely say that it is one of the psychological stimulants which produces this popularity. It would be interesting to pursue it and see whether it really affected the appearance of the fairy godmother that she would be able to provide only the dress and not a coach. We will not, however, pursue that enchanting line of speculation any further.
The Government feel that this Bill is not a proper vehicle for the making of a major Amendment to the Pool Betting Act on so important and controversial a topic. The purposes of the Bill are to provide for the establishment of licensed betting offices and to enact a new code for gaming. It is not concerned with the control of football pool betting, which was dealt with by the Act of 1954. It is true that I may be met with the debating answer that the House of Commons decided to insert into the Bill two new clauses, Clauses 13 and 14, which make minor Amendments to the 1954 Act. They are, however, very minor Amendments dealing with a point of almost infinitesimal narrowness. The proposal in the House of Commons to add two other clauses amending the 1954 Act was resisted by the Government, on the ground that they dealt with more important matters that were outside the scope of the Bill.
I do not want to enter into the controversy between my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley on the merits of the matter, but I think that if the Pool Betting Act, 1954, is regarded as unsatisfactory, the proper method of dealing with it would be by the introduction of fresh legislation about pools expressly for the purpose. I remember that in the House of Commons (my

353
noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will remember it, too) the first time the subject of football pools came up was on a Private Member's Motion on a Friday. As everyone who has been in the House of Commons knows, the difficulty on a Friday is usually to keep a quorum. On that day, every seat was occupied: people were crowding the gangways, and the interest was immense. Whoever is right, this is a subject of enormous popular interest. If we were seriously to regulate—and this Amendment would seriously regulate—it should be done by legislation directed to pools and not by a side wind in a different Bill.
That is not so hopeless as the argument about waiting for further legislation usually appears, because the 1954 Act was the result of a Private Member's Bill. It was introduced, if my memory is right, by Mr. Mulley. Therefore, if there was a feeling that there should be a change, it could be done by a Private Member's Bill; and there would be a lot to be said for it. It is, however, a matter of such popular importance and interest that at ought to be done by legislation directed to the point and, as I say, not by a side wind in a different Bill.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: It is interesting of the noble and learned Viscount to dangle before our eyes the carrot of hoping to achieve an amendment by means of a Private Member's Bill. Of course, hope springs eternal in the breasts of those who introduce Private Members' Bill; but their hopes are often frustrated, especially if the Government do not extend a blessing to the measure which is introduced. The principal point which has been raised in opposition to this Amendment is that it is a matter of acute controversy. It is perfectly true that divergent views have been expressed in this House this afternoon, but I have no evidence that it would be a matter of acute controversy in the country generally. Nobody is proposing in this Amendment to deprive the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, of the opportunity of filling in his football pool coupon. There is nothing of that kind in it. It can be said that one of the results of this Amendment would be to increase the number of prizes which would be available, and to increase the chances of winning a prize of a substantial
354
amount, instead of having the money concentrated in a prize of perhaps £250,000. So I am not at all sure that there would be any adverse criticism on the part of the general public; indeed, there might be a lot of support for it.
I want to remind the noble and learned Viscount of the principle which underlies this Bill—that although betting is something which cannot be stopped and which must be tolerated, at the same time it is not desired to increase the temptations to betting. I ask him to look at the sides of London buses which have plastered upon them the amount of the maximum winnings in a football pool. It is quite obvious that in the minds of those who pay far those advertisements—they probably understand their own business very well—they contribute to the attraction to a number of people, who never calculate what the real odds are, to fill up more and more football coupons.
LORD UVEDALE OF NORTH END: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his statement. I found him sympathetic to every view that has been expressed—which is only the right thing. But after showing sympathy with every word put forward he has finally to make up his own mind on this issue. I can only hope that he will make up his mind in the direction of this Amendment, which I now beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Gaming machines]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MANCROFT: May I say a word or two on the Motion that Clause 17 stand part of the Bill? This is the clause which is connected principally with gaming machines—that is, with such things as the fruit machine, colloquially known as the "One-armed bandit". There have been one or two rather disturbing articles in the newspapers of late, principally in the Sunday Pictorial of May 8, and in the People a week or two earlier, suggesting that a rather unsavoury racket is liable to break out upon the introduction legally of fruit machines into clubs and other places. If I understand it correctly—I have checked some of these facts and

355
it appears that there is some substance in this complaint—there are going to be rather unsavoury gentlemen buying enormous numbers of fruit machines from abroad who will plant them into all the little clubs which, it is expected, will take them and operate them as soon as this Bill becomes law.
I understand that the racketeering will be run on Transatlantic lines, in this way. While the clause lays down that the profits from the machines should be used for purposes other than private gain—that is, for the benefit of the club—in practice the owners of the machines will be able to demand a rent for their hire. It is suggested that certain strong-arm methods which have been used by undesirable characters in other places will be used to extort rents from innocent hirers of these machines—and very considerable rents at that. I understand that this has been a fairly typical practice in America, where it has given much trouble to the authorities. I think it would be most undesirable if it arose in this country. I must apologise to my noble and learned friend for having given him shamefully short notice that I was going to raise this point. There is no Amendment on the Marshalled List, and therefore I can do no more than ask him if he will look into this matter between now and the next stage, to see whether these reports are well or ill-founded; and, if they are well-founded, to see whether some precautions cannot be inserted into the Bill to prevent what is normally a pretty harmless and innocent amusement developing into a most undesirable racket.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly give an undertaking to keep a careful watch not only on the operation of Clause 17 after the Bill has passed into law, but on the foundation of the fears of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I am aware that some concern has been expressed about this clause; but as my noble friend says, its purpose is to legalise the practice whereby fruit machines are installed in such places as golf clubs and the profits are devoted to the funds of the club. But after the warning that we have had, we shall take steps to ascertain whether there is any foundation for the trepidation which my
356
noble friends express. I do not think I can say any more at the moment, except that I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised the point.
LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
5.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:
Saving for dominoes and cribbage on licensed premises, etc.
".—(1) Section eighteen of this Act shall not apply to the playing of dominoes or cribbage—

(a) on premises in respect of which there is for the time being in force a justices' on-licence granted under the Licensing Act, 1953, or a hotel certificate or public house certificate granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Act. 1959; or

(b) on premises in any district specified in Part I of the Ninth Schedule to the said Act of 1953 or in Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the said Act of 1959 which are being used for the sale on behalf of the Secretary of State of intoxicating or, as the case may be, excisable liquor for consumption on those premises.

(2) The licensing justices for any licensing district within the meaning of the said Act of 1953, or the licensing court for any licensing area within the meaning of the said Act of 1959. may at any time, if in the case of any particular premises such as aforesaid situated within that district or area they think fit to do by order impose such requirements or restrictions with respect to the playing of the said games on any part of those premises to which the public have access as they consider necessary to secure that the games are not played on that part of the premises in such circumstances as to constitute an inducement to persons to resort thereto primarily for the purpose of taking part in gaming at those games and that any such gamine on that part of the premises does not take place for high stakes.
(3) The justices or court aforesaid may at any time by a further order vary or revoke any previous order made under this section.
(4) An order under this section with respect to any premises shall come into force upon notice thereof being given—

(a) in the case of premises such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, to the person who is for a time being the holder of the licence or certificate aforesaid in respect of those premises;

(b) in the case of premises such as mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, to the Secretary of State,

357
and the justices or court shall send a copy of the notice to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the premises are situated; and, subject to any further order varying or revoking it, the order shall continue in force so long as the premises continue to be premises such as are mentioned in the said subsection (1).
(5) Section one hundred and sixty-six of the Licensing Act, 1953 (which relates to the application of that Act to the Isles of Scilly) shall have effect as if the reference therein to the functions of the licensing justices under Part VII of that Act included a reference to the functions of those justices under this section."
The noble and learned Viscount said: With your Lordships' consent, and with the approval of the Lord Chairman, perhaps we might consider Amendments Nos. 25 and 32, although of course No. 25 will be the one that will be strictly before the Committee. These are the Amendments which introduce the saving for dominoes and cribbage. I do not suppose that there is any great feeling on this point, and therefore I will explain only two aspects of the matter. One is the method that it is suggested should be used, which is unusual in gaming provisions, of naming the two games. The reason for that was that we have, in our consultations, consulted the Magistrates' Association on the alternatives. One was to name, and the other was to leave it to the different benches of magistrates. The Magistrates' Association felt that that would be undesirable and would lead to great difficulties and differences between, it may be, neighbouring, benches. So we have taken the rather unusual step of naming the two games.
With regard to dominoes I do not think that even in a House of saints, as your Lordships have proclaimed yourselves to be, there are any of your Lordships who will indignantly deny ever having played dominoes, so I do not think I need say any more on that. I confess that I am not an expert in cribbage, but I am told that it is fairly widely played for money in public houses; and although it is a card game it is one which appears to be easily distinguishable from other card games by its rules and by the manner of scoring on a special board, so that I do not think there will be much difficulty about identification.
The other matter that I wanted your Lordships to have in mind is that one of our reasons for not using this method
358
of naming games is that it is sometimes possible to invent games similar to those that are named. There is a long history, over centuries, of that being done. I do not think it is important here, but it might happen that in a particular distict or public-house they may have got into the habit of playing dominoes or cribbage for high stakes; and if it got about that it was encouraged in that house it would not only be a bad thing in itself but bad for the purposes of the house, as a public-house and a place where people could meet, drink and talk. We have therefore put in subsection (2) which gets round the difficulty by enabling the justices to impose requirements or restrictions upon the playing of these games if the gaming gets out of hand. That could happen where the game was played for high stakes or became such a popular attraction as to supplant the original purpose of the house. Subsection (2) has been put in so that in those circumstances the magistrates could attach conditions.
That leaves entirely unaffected the gaming which can take place in a separate room to which the public have no access. In these circumstances I do not think I need go into any further detail. I shall be pleased to answer any points on this rather lengthy Amendment which any noble Lords may wish to put. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: I have no feeling whatever about this Amendment. If somebody wants to play dominoes or cribbage in a public-house I see no particular reason why we should prevent him from doing it. In another place there was some discussion as to whether dominoes (which I must confess I have not played in my time) was a game of skill or a game of chance. But are dominoes a game at all? I always thought that dominoes were the implements with which the game was played and that each particular piece of wood, bone or other material, was a domino. I imagine that one can use these implements, or "dominoes" as I prefer to call them, in a variety of ways. Does not this new clause rather assume that there is only one game of dominoes

359
played, and that underlying the Amendment is the assumption that it is partly a game of skill and that people will play it according to the rules with which the noble and learned Viscount or I were brought up?
There is no reason why people should do so, however. They can invent their own rules and make it a pure game of chance—and even if that were so I should not myself feel very strongly about it. But I doubt whether that was the intention. I believe that underlying it was doubt of the extent to which it was a game of skill, and therefore I presume that the Government have thought it right to allow people to play this game in public-houses. I should be very glad if the Government would have another look at this clause. It may be merely a matter of drafting. If they wish to do so, it might be necessary to provide a safeguard to ensure that the game does not deteriorate into a game of pure chance. As for cribbage, I must say that I know nothing at all about the game. The noble and learned Viscount says it is a game in which cards are used. I take it from him. I was not aware of it.
LORD CONESFORD: I am worried about this clause from a rather different point of view. It seems to me that a clause of this length, solemnly setting out provisions about dominoes and cribbage, gives an indication of where we are getting to in this type of legislalation. I shall certainly not oppose the Amendment that my noble friend has moved. The addition of this new clause is a great improvement on the prohibition contained in Clause 18, but it is also a sign of how far Clause 18 is wrong.
Are the British public so incapable of behaving like adults that they have to be told what games they are to be allowed to play in public-houses? To me the idea is in itself slightly offensive. I believe the Amendment arises—and my noble and learned friend will tell me later if I am wrong—from the drafting of Clause 18 as it stands, containing the general prohibition of gaming. I will read the beginning of that clause:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, if any person takes part in gaming in any street or in other public place to which … the public have access, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty Pounds."
360
If we then look at the Definition Clause (Clause 27), we find that
"'gaming' means the playing of a game of chance for winnings in money or money's worth."
and that:
"'game of chance' includes a game of chance and skill combined and a pretended game of chance or of chance and skill combined, but does not include any athletic game or sport."
I am not sure if darts escapes as being a game or sport—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Pure skill.
LORD CONESFORD: I agree. I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend that dominoes and cribbage shall be excluded, as they are excluded by his new Amendment. But why those games alone? In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I think "dominoes" describes both the game and the pieces with which it is played; and I believe that those who play dominoes quite frequently challenge somebody else to a game of dominoes and ask what variety they are to play. If the noble Lord has never played the game before I would take him on in the variety known as "Fives"; and if he has never played it before he will find that there is a certain amount of skill in it. Equally, I should be prepared, if he has never played the game before—or even if he has—to take him on at backgammon.
Why on earth should one not play backgammon in a public-house if one wishes? Is it really to be said that the great British public must be restrained from doing so? I find it offensive to the nation that it should be thought necessary to pass this type of legislation. I agree with my noble and learned friend that it may be very convenient to the magistrates, if they have to enforce Clause 18, to have the actual games mentioned that are excepted beyond all doubt from the mischief of that clause. But I cannot believe that these are the only two games which the British public ought to be allowed to play in a public-house if they so wish.
I do not know what is the basic philosophy on which that view is based. I think there may be a great deal in the further provisions of the clause, which my noble and learned friend justified, to ensure that the game should

361
not be made, by excessive stakes or anything, the main attraction of the house so as to destroy the traditional pleasures of the public-house. That safeguard could operate even if many other games were permitted. I was sorely tempted, when I saw this clause, to add the words, "or backgammon or any other game", in order that the Government could really see what some of us thought on this subject and could state quite clearly what is the philosophy behind the restriction. I do not wish to weary the Committee. I agree that this new Amendment is an improvement on Clause 18 standing alone. Clause 18, standing alone, would obviously produce ridiculous results, if it hit the innocent pleasure of dominoes in a public-house. But I say that the exceptions are altogether too narrow and that the whole conception of this part of the Bill is insulting to the British public.
LORD STONHAM: I find myself enjoying the somewhat rare luxury of agreeing in almost every particular with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. But I think that even he will agree that much of what he said, although, I think, completely indisputable, is a little beyond the terms of this Amendment. I, too, welcome the Government's Amendment and wish that it went further. I think that the basic philosophy of this clause is based on the single word, "Don't"— "Don't do this", and "Don't do that". I wish it had gone very much further.
On this question raised by my noble friend about domino and dominoes, I always understood that a domino was a mask, and the word "dominoes" originated from the holes in the mask. I suppose that a domino is a single dot and dominoes are those with more than one dot—though I am not quite sure that that is right. My only purpose in intervening is to ask the noble and learned Viscount a question. Does subsection (1) (a) of the proposed new clause permit the playing of dominoes or cribbage on railway trains? We all know, particularly those of us who at one time played football or cricket and went on long railway journeys with the team, that those were the sort of simple amusements—playing cards—which whiled away the time. It may not have been cribbage that was played. It used to be pontoon and solo whist and games of
362
that kind. I suppose we played—I think we did—for penny and halfpenny points.
I want to know, because people, I am quite sure, will continue to play cards on railway trains whether or not this new clause makes that legal. And if it does not, would the noble and learned Viscount consider just looking at this particular point between now and the Report stage to ensure that something which is generally accepted as being quite harmless (unless you are going down to Epsom on a race train), or is usually quite harmless, is covered, and make the playing of these games, or, indeed, the playing of card games, on railway trains legal? Could he say whether this question is covered, and, if it is not, would he look at it again to see whether it can be covered at the next stage of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the last point, I should like to look into that question because I have not considered the effect of the various railway legislation on that point. I will certainly look into it, with pleasure, and I will let the noble Lord know. On the general point, the philosophy behind the clause is an extremely rare philosophy: it is the humble realisation of the limitations of human ingenuity possessed by Her Majesty's Ministers in this House or, at any rate, by the noble Earl and myself. And the limitation of which I have been very conscious is how to get any definition of the intermediate category.
Obviously, games of pure skill come in; then there are games of chance, which I do not think many people would like to see played generally in public-houses. This is my own view. I should not like to see the ordinary village pub devoted to poker in a big way, or even vingt-et-un in a big way, although there would be a harmless game of vingt-et-un occasionally. If one had definite poker schools and vingt-et-un schools settling down in the ordinary English public-house, it would not remain the public-house which one has known and loved in this country. There is the intermediate class between those categories which is so difficult to define. My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford may disagree with me about vingt-et-un; I do not think he would disagree about poker: I think he would take the same instinctive view. But how do we define the class which is a game of chance, or

363
mixed skill and chance, but is harmless? How does one get the category? That is the problem that absolutely defeated us, and that is why the Amendment has been made in this way.
I think I have inferentially dealt with one aspect of the supreme doubts of my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford. Again, it is equally difficult to define it. As I say, there is a class of games that one would just feel was out of keeping and therefore wrong. I do not think I can help him any further than that; and I am grateful to know that, at any rate on this Amendment, he feels that I am not sinning in the way mentioned and am moving a little way towards him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Local Authorities not to subsidise premises for gaming
21. It is hereby declared that nothing contained in section one hundred and thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1948, or in any local or private act shall be deemed to authorise any local authority to maintain or subsidise any premises solely or partly for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for the playing of games for money therein.
5.39 p.m.
EARL BATHURST EARL BATHURST moved to leave out "solely or partly" and to insert, "wholly or mainly". The noble Earl said: It might be convenient to your Lordships, with the Lord Chairman's permission, to take this and the next Amendment together. The object of this clause, which was added to the Bill in another place, is to prevent the establishment of a casino by a local authority. We had considerable discussion about that matter on Second Reading, and this Amendment is the one to which I referred at that time. As commonly understood, the term "casino" applies to a method of organised gaming adopted in some of the holiday resorts upon the Continent. The characteristics of these are; first, that the public are admitted; and, secondly, that the management meet the cost of the facilities provided, and commercial profit is made either by their operating a bank which has an unfair advantage over the players, or by their taking a "cut" on the stakes. The successful casino must obviously encourage large stakes to be laid, in order
364
that they can take their "cut" out of those stakes. An establishment conducted on these lines would be contrary to Part II of the Bill in two respects. The conduct of gaming in premises to which the public have access is contrary to Clause 18; and either of the methods I have just described, by which the management can take money out of the gaming, is contrary to Clause 16, subsection (1). Theoretically, it would be possible under the Bill to organise casino-type games among members of a club, but the likelihood of a profit being made by the making of a fixed charge for each session of gaming by virtue of Clause 16, subsection (7), seems so small that the commercial exploitation of gaming within the terms of the Bill can be discounted.
There remains the possibility that a local authority, in a holiday resort or elsewhere, might think it worth while to subsidise a casino to attract people to the locality. One of the obstacles to such an arrangement would be that the public could not be admitted it would be necessary to form a club which anyone who wished to take part in the gaming would have to attend. The only general power under which a local authority might perhaps be able to incur expenditure out of the rates for such a purpose is Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948. Under this, a local authority may arrange for the doing of, do, or contribute towards the expenses of the doing of, anything necessary or expedient for, inter alia, "the provision of an entertainment of any nature". Two questions arise on this: first, whether the provision of facilities for gaming would be included under the provision of an entertainment" which I have just mentioned; and, secondly, if so, whether the power is applicable to the provision of an entertainment which is not available to the public generally. As I have said, a club would have to be formed. The answers to these questions are not certain.
In another place they were concerned that this possibility should not be allowed to remain open, and on the Report stage the Government accepted an Amendment moved by a member of the Opposition Front Bench that Clause 21 should be added to the Bill. It was agreed that the words in the clause go

365
too far in preventing the provision by local authorities of facilities for legitimate activities, and the clause was added on the understanding that it would need to be amended, as I mentioned on Second Reading. Since then, the Home Office have consulted the local authority associations, and have obtained particulars of the ways in which local authorities legitimately provide facilities for gaming.
The clause declares that nothing contained in Section 132 of the Local Government Act, 1948, or in any local or private Act shall be deemed to authorise any local authority to maintain or subsidise any premises solely or partly for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for the playing of games for money therein. The reference in line 31 of this Bill should, of course, be to gaming—the phrase "playing of games for money" covers games of pure skill, as well as those covered by the definition of "gaming" in the Bill—and we have been hearing a little of that from my noble and learned friend who sits upon the Woolsack and from my noble friend Lord Conesford. This point is taken care of in the opening words of the second Amendment. Apart from this, the clause goes too far in so far as it applies to premises partly maintained for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for gaming. If the word "partly" were kept in the clause, one result would be to prohibit such facilities as the provision of a card room in a municipally-owned golf club house; or the letting of a room in a town hall or municipal assembly room to a bridge club or to a church for the holding of a whist drive. In local authority premises where this kind of gaming occurs, however, the gaming is only one of a number of activities which are carried on. The clause can thus be made not to apply in these circumstances by the substitution of "mainly" for "partly". This is what the first Amendment does. The clause as so amended would still, however, cover the hypothetical local authority casino since, even though meals or other refreshments might be served at such a place, the gaming would be the main activity there and thus would be caught by the clause.
The clause as amended by the first Amendment would still cover one activity of local authorities which is a
366
legitimate one. At many seaside resorts, the local authority maintains premises—for example, on the pier—which are used for the minor form of gaming covered by Part III of the Bill under the title of "Amusements with prizes". Such premises are maintained wholly for the purpose of persons resorting thereto habitually for gaming, and would therefore be covered by the clause even with the change proposed in the first Amendment. The second Amendment exempts such premises from its operation, and allows such premises as piers and other legitimate premises run by a local authority to continue, I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 29, leave out ("solely or partly") and insert ("wholly or mainly").—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD SILKIN: I must say that the explanation of these two Amendments is completely above my head. I will not say that I have not understood a word of it, but I have understood very little; and in order to appreciate it, one will have to read it in Hansard and study it. But I presume that the idea is to make it more difficult for local authorities to run casinos.
EARL BATHURST: No. If the noble Lord will allow me, the clause as it exists forbids a local authority to run a casino of the type that I have mentioned. I regret that it must be so complicated, but I am sure that the noble Lord opposite appreciates that so many legal terms are necessary to stop infringement. The point of the Amendment is that, because local authorities are forbidden to run the type of casino that I have mentioned, they are also forbidden to run such activities as a card room in a golf club, and to use the pier for gaming machines, under Part III, which I also mentioned. The purpose of these two rather technical Amendments is to put those particular provisions right.
LORD SILKIN: I was rather wondering whether, in view of that, it would not be a good thing if we could discuss these Amendments together with my Amendment to Clause 21.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say that we did consider this point, but I can assure the noble Lord that the making of our Amendments does not

367
in any way prejudice his plea for a casino. The Amendments that my noble friend has just dealt with make three relaxations. One would have to make much greater relaxations before it would be possible to have a casino, so they do not prejudice the noble Lord's position.
LORD STONHAM: That rather confirms a point that I was going to put: that is, that the use of the words "wholly or mainly" would not merely permit the use of a room in a town hall as a bridge room, but would surely permit the use of a casino in a building such as, for example, the Tower building at Blackpool, where they have a zoo, a theatre, an innumerable number of bars, a ballroom and all sorts of attractions like that. If they decided to convert one part of one floor into a casino, then the purpose of that building would be neither wholly nor mainly that of a casino, but it would be possible to carry on a fully-fledged casino there. In the same way, Brighton now has before it—in fact, it has been approved—a scheme costing something like £5 million for the provision of facilities of all sorts, including a restaurant and cinema. They could put a casino there which might occupy one-tenth or one-fifth of the entire project. I should have thought that, all things being equal, that would be permissible under these two Amendments but, as the noble and learned Viscount said, would not prejudice the possibility of the acceptance of the Amendment which my noble friend hopes to move later.
LORD MANCROFT: I am getting very confused over this matter. On Second Reading I supported the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that there would be little harm in allowing a municipality, or its agents, to run a legitimate and proper casino, well-ordered. I had in mind the sort of casino we see at Cannes or Deauville. I imagine that is what the noble Lord is driving at in this modestly worded Amendment No. 28. Can the noble and learned Viscount tell me this at the moment? Will it or will it not be legal, when the Bill becomes an Act, for a municipality to run a casino in the ordinary sense of the word as we understand it? And will the Act be so worded that it will be worthwhile, or not worthwhile, for a municipality to try its hand? I
368
see that the mayor and corporation of Eastbourne have announced that they are prepared to give a casino a trial if this Bill becomes law. But will it be worth while trying it, or will it be so wrapped round with provisos and safeguards as to make the game not worth the candle?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If my noble friend Lord Mancroft is asking me to give an economic opinion about the possibility of making money out of casinos, I am afraid that is beyond my experience, ministerial and otherwise. The noble Lord will find that I tried to deal with this matter on Second Reading and that my noble friend Lord Bathurst dealt with it also. Putting the position broadly, under our gaming scheme if you have a banker or a roulette with a zero or take a "cut" from the stakes, it is out. The ordinary methods by which money is made out of casinos by the bankers' chances being better than other people's or by the much simpler one of taking a share of the takings, are not available under the Bill.
There is a possibility that local authorities may think that, even though they cannot pay for a casino out of gaming, it is still worth their while to pay for it out of the rates because they would get so many more people coming to their town if they could gamble there. That was the possibility that was opened and that was why Clause 21 was put in. But it was realised that Clause 21 had gone too widely and therefore my noble friend Lord Bathurst has moved these Amendments. I will willingly examine whether the "wholly or mainly" is subject to the doubts which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had. I did not think so, but I am always prepared to look again at a definition, and the noble Lord conjured up some circumstances at which I should like to look again. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the relaxations mainly provide for things that are necessary for the running by an ordinary seaside municipality of a card game or a competition for prizes. They do not affect or prejudice the thesis which he will make on the next Amendment—namely, that they should be allowed to have casinos.
LORD COLWYN: May I support the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in what he

369
said? I cannot understand why we cannot get a real decision about these casinos. If you go into the Palm Beach Casino at Cannes or the Sporting Club at Monte Carlo, you will find many Members of your Lordships' House and of another place. I cannot see why we cannot come to some arrangement in this country to have some form of controlled gambling, which is a good thing for the State.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out line 31 and insert ("purpose of taking part in gaming:
Provided that this section shall not apply where the gaming is by way only of amusements with prizes and the premises are premises in respect of which a permit for the provision thereon of such amusements has been granted, and is for the time being in force, under the Third Schedule to this Act,")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that a local authority may, subject to such regulations for the management and control of such premises as may be prescribed, maintain or subsidise such premises if after a poll of persons on the register of local government electors in such local authority the majority of such electors express their approval at such poll of the local authority maintaining or subsidising such premises."
The noble Lord said: In this Amendment, I am afraid that I part company with some of my noble friends with whom I have been associated on other parts of the Bill. I regard this as an important Amendment and one which, if it is not fundamental to the Bill, at any rate represents an important issue for a number of local authorities throughout the country. I have been assured by the noble and learned Viscount that this is a proper Amendment, in spite of the fact that Clause 21 contains a declaration that Section 132 of the Local Government Act cannot be deemed to authorise the running of a casino. My purpose in this Amendment is to authorise local authorities to run casinos, if they so desire and if the majority of the electorate in a poll so decide.
I am not going to argue at length in this thin House the material advantages that would accrue to a great many areas if they were able to run casinos. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, is quite right. I have seen a number of noble Lords at the casino in Monte Carlo, and quite recently in Nice; and it may be that if they were able to go to a casino at Eastbourne, it might keep them from going abroad. A number of local authorities would like to run casinos for the purpose of attracting people to their areas. It is perfectly legitimate that they should. It is not as if we were objecting to gaming in this Bill. We permit betting shops, lotteries, gambling by means of machines and gaming in all sorts of ways. It seems to me that having gaming in an establishment run by a local authority, which provides some kind of guarantee that it will be run properly and fairly, is much less objectionable than the betting shops, the runners and all the rest of it.
As I say, there are two safeguards in the Amendment. One is that the majority of the electors on the local government register have to agree: by that I do not mean merely a majority of those who vote, but an absolute majority of all those on the register. Those of your Lordships who have had some experience of local polls will know that this would require some getting. The normal local poll is perhaps 10, 15 or 20 per cent. of the total electors, and there would have to be exceedingly strong feeling to get a majority of the electors in support of any particular scheme. But if you got that, and if the local authority wanted to run it, what possible objection could there be? After all, we pride ourselves on our system of local government and claim that we give local authorities the maximum amount of freedom to manage their own affairs. What objection can there be if the majority of the electors want to run a casino in their area?
In case it may be alleged that they might become institutions for gambling, the second safeguard in this Amendment is that the Home Secretary can prescribe regulations which would ensure that they would not be run improperly. I imagine that he could prescribe regulations as to the times during which play could take place, as to maximum stakes, as to

371
supply of alcohol, and any other safeguards that he thought desirable. One has to admit that the ordinary pavilion (or whatever these places of assembly are called) in the seaside towns are exceedingly dreary affairs. Occasionally there is a concert in the evening, or some other function; but mostly they are white elephants. Nobody would dream of spending much time in one of these institutions. This would, at any rate, give an opportunity of getting them used by a greater number of people, and for their greater enjoyment. People who go to these casinos abroad do not go to gamble: they go for the conviviality, for the lights, for the atmosphere, for the opportunity of meeting other people and that sort of thing.
After all, in a British seaside town there is precious little to do in the evening. You can walk up and down the promenade, if you feel so disposed and the weather is favourable, or you can go to a cinema, and sometimes to a concert. But what is there really to do? On the rare occasions when I have spent a holiday at a seaside resort I have found myself more and more having to spend my time in the hotel reading a book—which in itself is quite a novelty these days, when one gets so little time to read. The purpose of going to these casinos is, as I have said, to get a change and a little lightness and brightness. It is not to win money, because nobody who goes to these places really imagines he is going to win any money. Certainly on the kind of stakes that I imagine the Home Secretary might prescribe there would not be any great winnings or losses.
I hope that, in spite of the fact that the Government introduced Clause 21 on the Report stage in another place, they will preserve an open mind on this subject. As I said at the outset of my speech, I am sorry that this is being considered in such a thin Committee, and if the noble and learned Viscount would be prepared to give me some hope that the Government would be willing to consider the matter, it might be worth putting the Amendment down again on the Report stage with a view to getting a better attendance and, presumably, a better discussion. This is something which a great many seaside authorities have expressed their desire to do, if it
372
is possible. I do not want to mention particular resorts, but I have seen the names of something like a dozen seaside resorts that would like to do it. And it is not confined to seaside resorts, because there are inland resorts, where conditions are even drearier in the evening, where something of this kind would be welcome. I move this Amendment in the hope that it may get some sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 31, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Silkin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have explained twice the history of this matter. The Government accepted this clause—as I have said, it came from the Front Opposition Bench, but this is not a Party matter—and it was obviously the sense of another place that it was desirable to have a prohibition against casinos. That in itself is an important fact. The general principle that I enunciated on Second Reading with regard to the gaming part of the Bill is that it is the aim of the Bill to free private gaming for pleasure from restriction but at the same time to make unlawful any practice by which large profits might be made from the commercial exploitation of gaming. I feel that there would still be a great body of opinion in this country which would be against what they would consider to be a form of commercial exploitation, even though it were done by a seaside corporation.
LORD SILKIN: Even though the majority of the people on the register supported it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was going to come to that point, but I will deal with it right away. There are a large number of people in this country who would say that so fundamental a change in the British way of life as to institute Continental casinos is not a matter for local option, but one to be decided by Parliament. The noble Lord has given the picture. But, on the other hand, if you take the ordinary games that could be played in a Continental casino, you have roulette or baccarat—those are the ones that are caught by the unfair advantage rule—and then you have a game like chemin de fer, in which the players have equal chances but the management take a cut in the stake. I

373
think the noble Lord's interruption has reduced it to the real point. The question is whether Parliament wishes to have places for the playing of such games maintained in this country on the decision of a poll of local government electors. I do not think that this is an issue which ought to be settled by means of a local referendum. This is an issue which should be determined by Parliament, and whatever may be the views of a few people, the Government cannot think that the establishment of casinos in this country, whether they are established by private persons or local authorities, would be acceptable to the majority of public opinion. For that reason they are strongly opposed to anything being included in the Bill which could have this result.
I always like to help Lord Silkin to have another chance on Report stage, and I agree with him that it is unfortunate that we are discussing the Committee stage in the last hour or two before a break, because had we had a debate in which more noble Lords had taken part and which had received greater publicity, he might have been able to rally public opinion, or produce to rue evidence of public opinion before the Report stage. But I am bound to tell him that at the moment, on the view of public opinion which is the best that we can form, what I have expressed is our own estimate of public opinion; and therefore we are against the inclusion in the Bill.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think it would be right to make it clear that not all Members on this side of the House agree with my noble friend's proposal. I hope it will not go out into the minds of the general public from what my noble friend has said, and what the noble Lord on the other side has said, that if you go into the well-known casinos on the Continent you are bound to find a lot of Members either of this House or the other place. That, I think, is far from being correct.
LORD SILKIN: I did not say a lot of Members. I have been to both Monte Carlo and Nice. I do not go very often to these places, but I have always seen some Members there.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I think it was the noble Lord on the other
374
side who suggested that they were numerous. Even so, I think it is improbable that you will find them there always. My noble friend said that there were some material advantages to be had out of this. I confess that I cannot see what they are, and I do not know what moral advantages would be had out of it. My noble friend said that seaside resorts and other resorts were dreary places, and that casinos were places of conviviality. My experience of casinos is extremely limited, but I shall never forget one morning going into the casino at Monte Carlo and seeing seated at the table a number of habituées of the place concentrated upon this in the most deadly seriousness, having notebooks in which they were running systems out of which they hoped to win. There was nothing convivial about that sight at all; it was the most dreary and depressing one which I have ever seen in any supposed place of entertainment. I agree that there are probably other times of the day when the place may have a more cheerful aspect. But that is certainly something which ought to be borne in mind.
It is a different thing for people who are going to the Continent to have a holiday. I dare say they go into the casino in the evening and stake some money occasionally, and do not care whether they win or lose. Anyhow, they do not go to the Continent for that purpose alone. There are many other purposes which induce them to go there. It is quite a mistake to suggest that any Continental traffic is going to be prevented from going there because some seaside resorts in this country have a casino. The whole thing, I say, with all respect, is a fallacy.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 21 to insert the following new clause:
Lottery tickets
". After paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section one of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956 there shall be added the following paragraph—
'(bb) No commission in either money or money's worth shall be paid to vendors or distributors of tickets.'"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the two following Amendments are designed to correct some deficiencies and imperfections in the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956. The first Amendment which I am now moving is to prevent the payment of commission to vendors or distributors of tickets. Under the Act as it now stands there is a provision by which a certain amount of the money received may be used for the purpose of expenses. The idea which underlay that was that a certain amount of money was needed in order to pay for the printing of the tickets, and things of that nature. I do not believe that it was ever intended, when the Act was passed, that commission should be paid for selling tickets, but I am told that it is quite frequently done. The underlying principle of the Act was that it was for the benefit of small or private associations to enable them to raise money for good purposes; and the assumption was that the members were public-spirited people who were doing it for that purpose and were not going to make any money out of it themselves. But practice has shown that that is not the way in which the Act operates, and therefore I would ask your Lordships to agree to this Amendment to prevent the payment of commission upon the sale of tickets. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. He will remember that the purposes of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, which was the result of a Bill introduced in another place by a private Member, made lawful a lottery which is promoted on behalf of a society registered by the local authority, being a society established and conducted wholly or mainly for one of the following purposes:

"(a) charitable purposes;

(b) participation in or support of athletic sports or games or cultural activities;

(c) purposes not described in the foregoing paragraphs, and not being purposes of private gain or purposes of any commercial undertaking. …"

The Small Lotteries and Gaming Act was a small Act, but it was of immense importance socially, politically and
376
athletically. It was asked for in another place by a wide range of people, including many members of the Labour Party, who thought that, with the limitations, it would be useful to have, just as it would be useful to the Conservative Party or to the Liberal Party.
The Act laid down that no remuneration was to be paid to the promoter; no ticket may cost more than one shilling, and the total value of the tickets sold may not exceed £750; not more than 10 per cent. of the proceeds may be devoted to expenses, and not more than one half to prizes; no prize may exceed £100 in value. So that one is dealing with gaming in a small way. There is the additional requirement that the promoter of the lottery must send to the local authority which has registered the society a return of the lottery giving various particulars, which include the whole proceeds of the lottery and the sums provided out of those proceeds on account of expenses and prizes respectively. Those returns must be made to the local authority at their office and must be made available for inspection by the public.
I am quite aware of, and I have read, the Report recently made to the Churches' Council on Gambling by its General Secretary on an investigation into the working of this Act. The investigation was made by a scrutiny of the returns made to a sample of local authorities. I assume that it was that report which inspired the noble Lord to put down this Amendment. On the question of the remuneration of those who sell tickets, I am told that it is not infrequent in the case of lotteries conducted under the Act for remuneration to be paid to the ticket sellers in the form of a commission of so much on every book of tickets sold. Your Lordships appreciate from what I have said that, although commission may be paid, the Act imposes a degree of restraint in so far as the commission will be included in the expenses of conducting the lottery, which must not exceed 10 per cent. of the proceeds.
Where my information is different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is this—and I think it is an important point. I am told it was a deliberate decision of Parliament in 1956 that it should be possible to pay commission to ticket sellers; that they

377
considered the recommendation of the Royal Commission and that they implemented the first part but not the second. The question of the payment of commission to ticket sellers was discussed during the passage of the Bill but the decision was not to include any prohibition, and the limit of the total of expenses, which began at 5 per cent., was raised first to 7½ per cent. and then to 10 per cent., to cover the commission to the ticket sellers. That is only four years ago. I do think again that this is the sort of matter that we could leave to a special amendment of the Small Lotteries Act by another Private Member's Bill. It is outside the two main purposes of this Bill, and we are really dealing with something that has no element of commercial gambling so far as I know, except this one point: that the people who sell the tickets can get a commission on them. I do not think that we ought to deal with it in the context of this Bill. We can leave it for a Private Member, should he so desire it, and I would ask the noble Lord, having drawn attention to this—and I am sure that local authorities and those responsible will bear in mind what he has had to say—not to press it at this stage of this Bill.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I do not intend to press this Amendment I fully appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I am reluctant to lose an opportunity of carrying through an Amendment, because, as I said on an earlier occasion, it was all very well to say that a Private Member's Bill can be introduced to deal with these matters, but this is a Bill which is expressly designed, as its Long Title says, "to make amendments in the law with respect to gaming"—this is a species of gaming—and to facilitate consolidation, which implies that the Government is going to introduce a Bill which will consolidate the whole law with regard to gaming, including the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act. If that happens it may be even more difficult to secure Amendments. However, I will withdraw this Amendment because it may be that Parliament intended that commission should be paid. I very much doubt whether that was the real intention, because the promoter himself is expressly debarred from getting any remuneration at all, and
378
that can easily be evaded by putting up some man of straw to be the nominal promoter and then getting somebody else to do the work and be paid the commission.
I want to point out to the noble and learned Viscount that, although there are limitations in this Act, the total amount may be £750; 10 per cent. of that is £75, and the expenses of printing may on a lottery of that magnitude, be quite a small fraction of £75; so that the margin which may be left for the purpose of paying commission might be quite appreciable. I am not going to press the Amendment, but I hope he will invite the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary to keep an eye upon this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 21 to insert the following new clause:
Form of lottery return
". At the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section three of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, there shall be added the words 'itemising the expenses and the prizes'."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is for the purpose of making certain that the returns which are made to the local authorities by the promoters of small lotteries shall contain adequate particulars. The noble and learned Viscount read out a few moments ago what the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act says upon this subject, and it appears that the law is sufficiently complied with by putting in a return which shows merely a global sum for the receipts, for the expenses and for the prizes. That being so, it is quite impossible for the local authority or anybody who inspects a return to form any idea as to whether or not the expenditure has been properly incurred. It is surely essential that the purpose for which the making of returns was inserted in the Act should be made effective by ensuring that the returns which are filed with the local authorities contain particulars which are capable of being verified and capable of being checked. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
6.30 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment. I am afraid that the noble and learned Viscount will probably advance the same arguments in this particular matter as he did in regard to the remuneration of the sellers of the tickets, and it may well be that that is a strong argument. But, as the one who introduced this Act into your Lordships' House, I must confess that I read the Report of the Churches' Committee on this problem with a good deal of disquiet. I feel that the provisions in the original Act were not tightly enough drawn. Not only did the Churches' Committee investigate this matter, but one of the responsible daily papers a year or two ago conducted an investigation—albeit not a complete one, as my memory goes—into the problem, and that result, too, was rather disquieting.
I think it is fairly clear that the provisions of the Act as they stand are not sufficiently tightly drawn to control this matter. There probably is not evidence that it has become a major public scandal or anything of that kind, but there are here possibilities of a good deal of rather unsavoury conduct. There is a type of person about in the world at present who is much alive to the possibilities of exploiting opportunities of this kind. I feel that the Home Office are in a much better position to investigate what is going on. If the noble and learned Viscount, as I expect he will, resists the Amendment on the grounds that it should be dealt with like the last one, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch has said in asking him to bring the matter clearly to the attention of the Home Secretary, so that this business can be effectively looked at.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly do that. I will not repeat my general arguments, but for the benefit of both noble Lords, I should like just to say that the first relevant provision is that there must be a society registered by the local authority and established for the three purposes which I mention. Clearly, that is one point which one might look into, to see that none of the societies is marginal. I should not like to hint that one can say anything more than that, because it would be a poor thing to say of people unless one had
380
evidence. But I can look at it, because I gather that the suggestion has been made by the Council of Churches that some are marginal. I do not think they go beyond that. On the question of expenses, as I said, there is a limit of 10 per cent., and if more than 10 per cent. is devoted to expenses, that is, I think I am right in saying, an offence under the Act which the noble Lord introduced. Therefore the sanction is there, and the local authority—
LORD CHORLEY: The noble and learned Viscount will probably agree with me that it is not easy to make sure that this limit is not being, exceeded on the basis of the returns which are made. That is what I rather gather.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the point that I am not clear about. Perhaps it is my own stupidity at this stage of the Bill. You cannot have more than £75. Whether you itemise or not your expenses, including the commission on the tickets, they must not exceed 10 per cent. and the maximum you can collect is £750 under the Act. Thus the maximum of expenses that you can have is £75. Whether itemised or not, if they are more than £75 that is an offence under the Act. The second point is that in order to collect £750 you would need to have printed 15,000 tickets at one shilling each, if my arithmetic is right. I know that even when I last stood for Parliament, which is nearly nine years ago, one paid a terrifyingly high price for the printing of one's Election literature—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would agree with me there. So you are dealing with the difference between your printing expenditure and any other expenditure, and £75. You cannot give more commission than that, and you cannot get your expenses over £75.
The third point is—I merely state these as possibilities—that local authorities have not been quick off the mark when they have found that there have been breaches. I will see that the Home Office takes this point into consideration. But, in view of the smallness of the subject matter and the great excellence of a number of the purposes for which these small lotteries are carried out, I think that we might leave it with that assurance on my part.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I should like just to say this. The noble and learned Viscount has said that in this matter there is little at stake and that the maximum size of any lottery is only £750. He suggested that practically all the expenses will disappear in the printing. That is exactly one of the things which requires to be ascertained, and it will not be ascertained unless a provision of this kind is inserted into the Bill. In addition, let me point out that it is not necessarily a case of one lottery in a year; it may conceivably be one lottery every week. In some cases, at any rate, this is practised as a system which is conducted time after time; and when you begin to look at it from that point of view, the thing takes on a very different picture.
This Amendment is unlike the previous Amendment, in respect of which the noble and learned Viscount was entitled to say that provision with regard to preventing commission was deliberately left out when the Act passed through Parliament. But this Amendment is one dealing merely with the machinery of the administration of this Act, and is for the purpose of trying to ensure that the returns are of a nature which can be checked. If Parliament decided that the returns were to be made by the promoters of small lotteries and be deposited with the local authorities, and be open to public inspection, Parliament presumably intended to achieve something by it. But the machinery for achieving that is nugatory if no details are given; and it is quite impossible to verify the theory which, from my information, is not true in the case of the larger ones—printing lottery tickets at a cheap rate is a considerable business in this country—that most of the expenditure is merely the expenditure of printing. That is something that we ought to know about, and I beg the noble and learned Viscount to look at it from that point of view.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.40 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after Clause 21, to insert the following new clause:
Nil returns
".At the end of section three of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956 the following subsection shall be added—
'(4) Any society which is registered under this Act which does not hold a lottery during the course of any calendar year shall send to the local authority a return stating this fact not later than the 31st day of March of the following year.'"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment also is intended to cure a defect in the administrative machinery of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act. Societies which are registered under this Act are required to pay a fee and to renew their registrations every year; and they are also required to lodge returns with regard to every lottery held. I am told that there are numerous cases in which societies renew their registration year after year but file no return. It certainly seems rather strange that they should do that if they are not holding any lotteries. The purpose of the Amendment, therefore, is to require registered societies to file a return even if they have not held one, stating the negative fact that they have not done so. This, again, is a provision which surely ought to be inserted in the Act, if the provisions with regard to filing returns are intended to work and to have any real meaning. I think that must be clear and that societies which maintain their registration ought to make perfectly clear the fact of whether or not they have held a lottery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On this point, the societies presumably having paid their registration fee, there are two possibilities: the first that they have held lotteries, the second, that they have not. If they have, and have not put in a return to the local authority, then they have committed an offence under the Act and can be prosecuted. If they have not held any lotteries, then the only effect of this Amendment would be that they would have to put in a "nil" return. I do not repeat my argument for not amending this small but useful measure at the present time, because my argument is that it ought to be looked at in its own context. But I certainly do not think there is any likelihood of scandal being raised by the absence of this Amendment, because if the society have held lotteries there is an obligation under the Act that they should make a return.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble and learned Viscount is perfectly correct but is there an obligation upon anybody to inquire into the circumstances, to try to discover whether or not a lottery has been held? On the previous Amendment the noble and learned Viscount suggested that local authorities were under some obligation to inspect the returns when they are made. I do not know of anything in the Act which requires them to do so, and I am told that in a good many cases returns are simply filed, and that nobody looks at them or pays any attention to them. Consequently, no doubt it is also the case that nobody bothers at all if a lottery society register year after year and never put in a return. Who does bother to find out whether or not they have committeed a breach of the law? That is the weakness of the situation. It is evident that I have not succeeded in carrying this Amendment, but I hope that the right honourable gentleman, the Home Secretary, will look into this question, for what is the use of having on the Statute Book a law to which nobody pays any attention? I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Playing of games on certain premises]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 36, at end insert ("or a requirement or restriction for the time being in force under section (Saving for dominoes and cribbage on licensed premises etc. of this Act is contravened.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Short title, extent and commencement
30.—
(3) This Act shall come into force on the appointed day.
6.48 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to the clause:
"and shall come to an end at the expiration of five years after the appointed day".
384
The noble Lord said: As I believe this is the last Amendment at the Committee stage which we shall be moving from this side, I should like, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, to convey our thanks to the noble and learned Viscount for the very patient, careful and courteous consideration he has given to all the arguments we have put forward, and to thank also his noble friend Lord Bathurst. We are very grateful that on those occasions when it appeared there was some point of substance in our arguments, the noble and learned Viscount agreed to look at them again.
This Bill that we are considering and on which, apart from the Schedules, our discussions have almost come to an end at this stage, is an experiment. There is no dispute about that. We think it is a bold and, in some ways a brave experiment; but it is a conglomeration of views and opinions and the best advice that the Government can get in an uncharted field. Some of us who believe that on some things in this Bill we know better than the Government, believe they have been wrong. For example, there has been a strong cleavage of opinion, both here and in another place, as to whether or not street bookmakers should be licensed. The Government have come down on the other side of the fence on that matter and have decided that we shall not license street betting but shall concentrate instead on betting offices.
Perhaps arising from that, it has become necessary to say that all the bookmakers' agents—the various people, roundsmen of all kinds, runners in factories and all kinds of people—shall legally become agents and servants of bookmakers, and carry on a cash betting business on their behalf. I believe that most of your Lordships have had doubts and misgivings on points of that kind; and I could, of course, instance a great many more. In fact, the whole Bill has given rise to a sharp cleavage of opinion, not so much between those who would at all costs prohibit and stop betting and those who think there should be reasonable freedom to bet, but about the right way in which to grant that reasonable freedom. I do not think anyone at all would doubt that premise.
For these reasons my noble friends and I have felt that there should be a term to the Bill. My noble friend

385
Lord Silkin raised this point on Second Reading and suggested that the Bill should end in five years. I then expressed the opinion that two years would be long enough; and if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor should suggest that five years would be too long a period before a reconsideration, then my noble friend would probably very readily accept the shorter term. But the Amendment we have down now suggests that the Bill should come to an end at the expiration of five years after the appointed day. That would mean that, four years hence, the Government of the day—perhaps of the Party opposite or, I hope, of my Party—would have an obligation on them to decide whether the Bill had in all respects succeeded or whether it required amendment in some respects; and they would have the duty either to continue the Act exactly as it is or to bring in an amending Bill.
The noble and learned Viscount may well argue that all Governments are constantly reviewing legislation. That is perfectly true. But it is a very different matter to have an Act on the Statute Book and, if there is something wrong about it, for the pressure of public opinion to be brought to bear on the Government to induce them to bring in an amending Bill. Private Members may try to redress wrongs in that way but it is a matter of some considerable difficulty. It is quite a different thing to have written into an Act that five years after the appointed day the Act shall come to an end, because that puts on the Government of the day an absolute obligation to make up their mind about it, to examine all aspects, and, in the light of experience, to find out whether or not some parts of the Act need alteration. We think, therefore (and this cannot be disputed), that, since in so many respects this is an experiment—in so many important parts of the Bill we are setting out on an uncharted sea without any past experience to guide us: we have only our estimate of the various facts and the evidence that has been put before us—there is a strong case for writing into the Bill now a term of years to ensure that it is reconsidered in the way I have suggested.
Amendment moved—
386
Page 24, line 27, at end insert ("and shall come to an end at the expiration of live years after the appointed day")—(Lord Stonham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I, first of all, thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his kind remarks about my noble friend and myself. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I are old, friendly opponents in this field of human endeavour, and his sagacity in helping the House is well known. I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, speaking from this side of the House, how much we appreciate the contribution he has made to this House during the time he has been here. That has never been more apparent than on this Bill.
Although he has developed a serious argument and made an undeniable point in basing it on the experimental nature of these new provisions, I do not think he had very great hopes of its acceptance. I shall not keep the Committee for a moment, but I am not putting the Amendment in the category of a number of Amendments he may remember when I was in charge of the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill, which was the first de-nationalisation measure of the 1951 Government. Mr. Leslie Hale put down an Amendment of this kind in another place which I think was to delay it for two years. That was done on the basis that there were usually ten by-elections every year and the Government would undoubtedly lose all ten by-elections, so that in two years their majority would be destroyed.
But I should like, in deference to the argument, to say that it would be a serious matter to include a provision of this kind, because the result of making the Amendment would be that those concerned to provide facilities for betting and gaming, such as the proprietors of amusement parks, would be left in a state of uncertainty as to whether it would continue in force beyond the five-year period. It is the Government's intention, and their expectation, that the Bill will succeed in its purposes. The most controversial part of it is the establishment of licensed betting offices, but the decision of the Government to bring forward legislation to make these lawful was not a shot in the dark. It was based upon ample experience in the Republic of Ireland and, more recently, in Northern Ireland, which has

387
shown that licensed betting offices can provide a satisfactory alternative channel to street betting; and the Government see no reason why the same should not be so in Great Britain. Therefore we feel that it would be a mistake to write into a Bill anything which suggested that Parliament, in passing it, has doubts about whether it will work. It would be unfortunate and discouraging if those who had to operate the Bill should be required to do so under the shadow of the knowledge that there was no certainty that it would continue in force for more than a period of years.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as a good advocate, has discounted what I am now going to say: that the Government will, of course, keep the provisions under review. But as he has discounted it, I should like to assure him that this is a field where the review cannot remain merely a matter of words; it is a field in which the Home Office must get the fullest information from the police and from local authorities as to the working of this matter, and I can assure him that that will be done. I am afraid that I cannot advise your Lordships to agree to the Amendment but I am grateful to the noble Lord for the most felicitous terms in which he moved it.
LORD SILKIN: With my eye on the clock, I want to say that I am sure the noble and learned Viscount knows how much I appreciate his approach to the Committee stages on various Bills—I will not say more. I see the force of what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I always do, I hope. Nevertheless, the kind of review which all legislation necessarily gets from a Government is not really good enough, in my view, in this case. I can see that it might not be desirable to bring this Bill to an end at the expiration of a certain period because of leases on premises and commitments in that connection, and so on: some people may require to take leases for periods longer than five years. But I should like to see some more definite and specific obligation inserted in the Bill, which would put the Government under the duty of looking at how the thing is working.
It may be that the right way would be to require a report from the Home Office on the working of the Bill, either
388
an annual report or a report at the end of a certain time. If the noble and learned Viscount would be prepared to consider that, or something along those lines, to be written into the Bill—something short of putting an end to the operations of the Bill—I myself should be disposed to accept that in lieu of the Amendment; and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to giving some kind of consideration to that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to do that. I did promise the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, in respect of one of his Amendments, that we would consider how information in a certain field should be gained, and I should like to look into the general possibility of reports. Frankly I have not applied my mind to it. I will do that, and I will write to the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
First Schedule [Bookmakers' Permits, Betting Agency Permits and Betting Office Licences]:
7.1 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: I should like to associate myself with my noble and learned friend in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the kind remarks that he has made. It has been a great honour and a great privilege to be assisting my noble and learned friend in this Committee stage—and a very great experience, too. I only apologise to noble Lords in all parts of the House if I have not been able to make myself quite clear; and I am most grateful for the assistance of my noble and learned friend. But noble Lords will appreciate that I must stick pretty closely to the words—otherwise, a coach-and-horses, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, suggested, may start appearing.
I could speak on Amendments Nos. 37 to 42 inclusive, as they all deal with the same subject. We concede in these Amendments that the licensing authority should not be a respondent to an appeal against a refusal to grant or renew a bookmaker's permit or an agency permit, but shall be a respondent to an appeal against the refusal of a licence for a betting office. I could go through that at considerable length, but I assure your Lordships that it has the approval

389
of the licensing magistrates. I beg leave to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 49, leave out ("to the authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 50, at end insert ("and, if the appeal relates to a betting office licence, to the authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 26, leave out ("the appropriate authority").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 27, after ("authority") insert ("or, if the appeal relates to a betting office licence, the appropriate authority")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This, also, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 30, leave out ("a") and insert ("in the case of an appeal under paragraph 22 of this Schedule with respect to a betting office licence, the")—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: This, is likewise a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 31, leave out from ("allowed") to the end of line and insert ("the appeal").—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Rules for Licensed Betting Offices]:
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after paragraph 1 to insert:
"2. No licensed premises shall be open for business after half-past six in the afternoon."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is self-evident: that is, to ensure that premises licensed under this Act shall not remain open for indefinite periods in the evening. My only doubt about the Amendment is that I think it is too generous and that it would have been better, perhaps, to have chosen an earlier hour. After all, most shops, places of business and other premises are closed for business transactions before this time of day. It is agreed by everybody, I think, that premises used for betting should not remain open indefinitely, and the hour which is suggested in this Amendment, but which I should have liked to make even earlier, is 6.30. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 48, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
LORD WOLVERTON: if I may detain your Lordships for a few moments, I hope the House will not accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Bar-loch. In the Second Schedule the Minister has taken power to close these premises on
"Good Friday, Christmas Day and every Sunday, and at such other times, if any, as may be prescribed"
by the Minister. There is such a thing as what is called evening racing, which is very popular with a large number of people in the summer months, at any rate from Monday to Friday. As we are providing facilities in these betting offices for people to bet by cash, it would be a considerable inconvenience to many people if they could not put bets on evening races in the summer months. As this Bill is part of an experiment, I think it would be much better to leave it to the Minister's descretion, for him to see what time it is necessary to close these betting offices, when they come into operation. My own view is that it should be a later hour, at any rate in the summer months; otherwise, I think it will cause considerable hardship to the betting public.
EARL BATHURST: In another place there were several ideas as to what time the betting shops should close, and there were different ideas (some along the lines which my noble friend has put

391
forward) varying from 6.30 up to 10 o'clock. For that reason there is no time specifically written into the Bill. The Churches' Council on Gambling in a letter to my right honourable friend, have drawn attention to this reservation, and have represented that, at least to begin with, the 6.30 closing provision should be made to cover the whole of the country. That was partly because there are already illegal offices in Scotland which operate much later for the reasons which my noble friend has mentioned. Six-thirty was also the time that the Royal Commission recommended in their Report. It is difficult to prophesy what the consequences would be if these illegal offices were required to close at 6.30.
However, in view of the apparently widespread desire for a uniform closing hour, bearing in mind the Royal Commission Report, and after consultation with the Scottish Chief Constables, my right honourable friend is prepared to give an undertaking that he will make regulations prescribing 6.30 as the closing hour. These regulations will be reviewed and, if need be, amended in the light of experience. The experience of the police in enforcing the Street Betting Act when the Bill is through will be very relevant in this connection. Similarly, if evening horse-racing becomes extensive, it may be necessary to review the position somewhat along the lines which my noble friend has suggested. In the event, we do not wish to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am grateful to the noble Earl for the statement which he has made, and I am of course quite happy with the pledge that regulations will fix the hour of 6.30. I do not deny that, in the light of experience, some other views may prevail, though I sincerely hope that they will not, because there is the welfare of the people employed to be considered, as well as many other matters. I am obliged to the noble Earl and to the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor for their courtesy and for the way in which they have dealt with the Amendments, although I have not generally been very successful. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third to Fifth Schedules agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Repeals.]
EARL BATHURST: This is a technical and drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—

SIXTH SCHEDULE
Page 43, line 46, at end insert—

"30 & 31 Vict. c. 134.

The Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867.

Section twenty-three."

—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

ROAD TRAFFIC AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
7.30 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Occupiers' Liability (Scotland),

Highlands and Islands Shipping Services,

Population (Statistics),

Indecency with Children,

Radioactive Substances,

International Development Association,

Game Laws (Amendment),

Payment of Wages,

Civil Aviation (Licensing),

Dock Workers (Pensions),

Commonwealth Teachers,

Ghana (Consequential Provision),

Merchant Shipping (Minicoy Lighthouse),

Abandonment of Animals,

Bromley College and other Charities Scheme Confirmation,

Chipping Sodbury Town Trust Scheme Confirmation,

United Charities of Nathaniel Waterhouse, and other Charities (Halifax) Scheme Confirmation,

Scottish American Investment Company Limited Order Confirmation,

Northampton County Council,

Saint Martin's Parish Church Birmingham,

London and Surrey (River Wandle and River Graveney) (Jurisdiction),

Derbyshire County Council,

Cornwall County Council,

Saint Peter Upper Thames Street Churchyard,

394

Bala to Trawsfynydd Highways (Liverpool Corporation Contribution),

Royal Exchange Assurance,

Saint Peter's Church Nottingham (Broad Marsh Burial Ground),

Royal College of Physicians of London,

Saint Stephen Bristol (Burial Grounds etc.).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I should like to inform your Lordships that there will be a formal Sitting of the House tomorrow at 11 o'clock.