BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL. [H.L.]

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, the next Amendment on the Order Paper is a drafting Amendment on the same lines as the earlier Amendment at page 3, line 1.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, Clause 3 prohibits all pari mutuel betting where there is resorting, except for totalisator betting conducted by the Racecourse Betting Control Board or on dog tracks under the provisions in the present Bill. Subsection (4) of Clause 3 provides that nothing in Clause 3 is to affect the operation of any provision of the Betting Act, 1853. The object of subsection (4) is to make it quite clear that Clause 3 of the Bill does not supersede the Betting Act, 1853, in the application of that Act to pari mutuel betting. In other words, a person who conducted, for example, a "tote" club would be liable to be prosecuted either under the provisions of Clause 3 or under the second part of Section 1 of the Betting Act, 1853. He could not, of course, be punished both under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, and under the Act of 1853. I would venture to suggest to the noble Viscount who has moved this Amendment that pending an overhaul of the general law as to off-the-course betting it is undesirable to restrict the operation of 971 the Betting Act, 1853, since it is conceivable that undesirable practices might develop in the future, which were not within the terms of Clause 3 of the Bill but might come within the provisions of the 1853 Act. I think therefore that the noble Viscount, after consideration, will see that the Bill as at present drawn, in conjunction with the Act of 1853, is a safeguard which it would be as well to maintain.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for his reply. I was especially glad to hear from him that there is going to be a general overhaul of the Betting Acts; but I suppose we may have to wait perhaps seven years for it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

And Hertfordshire.

LORD JESSEL

A very little bit of Hertfordshire. I am sorry I left out that important County. It seems to me that, in dealing with this area, if we do not have uniformity we shall run into great confusion. One county council may delegate its powers to the standing joint committee and another county council may delegate its powers to some other committee. It seems to me that we shall get into a tremendous mess unless there is uniformity and all the standing joint committees of these various councils can combine together for joint purposes. That is my point as regards the area of the Metropolitan Police, and those counties which are within that area. The standing joint committee is a very good committee. It is composed as to one half of members who are nominated by the county council, and as to the other half of those justices who are nominated at Quarter Sessions. I might add that included in it in the case of the County of London there are eighteen members. Nine are appointed by the London County Council and nine by the justices at Quarter Sessions, but among those nine are two gentlemen, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, both of whom have eminent legal qualifications. Your Lordships may remember that, as regards licences and the numerous questions connected therewith, it was held by many noble Lords, speaking with great authority in this House, that legal and judicial minds were required to deal with those matters. I submit that for that reason—though I should have preferred some other committee—the standing joint commitee is far better than any other committee which has been suggested. I am supported in that view by the speech of Lord Merrivale on the last occasion, who was himself Chairman of Quarter Sessions, besides holding high judicial office, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who suggested that in his opinion it was preferable that these functions of a quasi-judicial nature should be exercised by the justices.

There is one other point about the outside counties—outside in the sense of 976 their being outside the Metropolitan Police district—which may carry weight with your Lordships in deciding this question. One thing that we want to do—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, will agree with me in this—is to remove the question of the licensing of betting tracks from the purview of local politics. The noble Lord in his weighty speech very strongly affirmed the necessity for that. It might happen very possibly in some counties that they would not avail themselves at all of the elasticity which the noble Marquess provides in his Amendment, and the whole county council might decide this question and we should then get an atmosphere—which I think your Lordships cannot contemplate with equanimity—of political wrangling at elections which, as everybody in this House who spoke on the matter agreed, would not be for the benefit either of local government or of the judicial frame of mind which is so necessary.

I am grateful to the noble Marquess, who, with that Parliamentary skill which he has shown in piloting through your Lordships' House this very difficult and controversial Bill, agreed to the suggestion of the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, to defer consideration of this matter to the Report stage. I thank him for that; but at the same time I do hope, for the reasons which I stated, that he will agree to my Amendment. It will remove a good many difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, has an Amendment down later which amounts more or less to the same thing. If a change is to be made it might be made all round, and we should get uniformity, and I do not think anybody would be worse off. As regards the Association of Municipal Corporations, I think anybody who heard Lord Bayford's speech will agree that with that Association it was a matter more or less of machinery—which is dealt with by another Amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry—which made them averse from handing this over to the standing joint committees.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, it will be recollected that during 977 the Committee stage there was a considerable body of opinion against the Government on this matter, and the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill undertook to reconsider it. We are all indebted to him for the opportunity he has given for further consideration. I very much regret that I am unable myself to accept his conclusions. My view is really in support of the Amendment to the Amendment proposed by Lord Jessel. In substance it means that whilst there is no objection to the Government's present proposals to vest the licensing authority in the county council, the county council nevertheless should be bound, instead of merely having the option, to delegate its functions as licensing authority to the standing joint committee. I take this view on what, I conceive to be broader lines than those put forward in the first part of the argument of Lord Jessel, not so much from the way in which it would affect London, or because it would secure uniformity: my ground of objection to leaving it to the county council as the licensing authority is one of broad principle which I would commend respectfully to your Lordships' consideration.

It is eminently undesirable that we should leave functions of this character to an elected body like the county council. Political considerations must then enter into the matter. One has to remember that the functions are not merely those of considering the amenities of the neighbourhood in order to determine whether or not these tracks should be there, but there are also judicial functions to be exercised. Under Clause 6 it is quite true there are limits to the discretion. There are certain provisions which make the restriction quite clear. Nevertheless, the authority must come to a conclusion, and must give its reasons as provided in Clause 6. Then Clause 15 is an important clause, which gives power to revoke a licence at any time; and, naturally, when a licence is applied for again, there is not only the power but the duty of consideration before coming to a conclusion. It seems to me eminently undesirable that questions of this character should have to be decided entirely by a body which is elected and which has to submit itself for re-election. You can easily see, especially when you are dealing with such matters as betting facilities on tracks, that there may be a number of 978 persons who will have their views about this, and will make those views heard at election time.

There are difficulties in making the Quarter Sessions the licensing authority. I see that. There is a great deal to be said for the county council being the body to deal with questions which depend upon the amenities in the neighbourhood and various local considerations; no doubt they can better decide those questions than the justices. But, for all the reasons I have referred to—Clause 6 and Clause 15 with the power of revocation of the licence, and so on—I thought on reconsideration that a good and workable compromise was to have these matters delegated to the standing joint committees by the county councils. It has this advantage. After all, these committees consist, as to one-half, of county council members, and as to the other half, of justices. Consequently you get a tribunal which combines the two functions, and that, I submit, is the best. My noble friend who is in charge of the Bill has recognised this to a great extent, but it does seem to me he has not recognised it to the full extent, because in the Amendment he has proposed and his later Amendment he says the licensing authority should be the county council and the county council should have the power, but he does not impose on the county council the obligation. That is the point of Lord Jessel's Amendment.

If you substitute "shall" for "may" in my noble friend's Amendment, the effect of it would be that the authority then would be the standing joint committee. That seems to me, taking into account the difficulty both in regard to justices and the county council, the best tribunal to decide this matter. I admit it does not get away from the objection of persons taking part in these discussions who have to submit themselves to the electors. As I understand these standing joint committees, half of them consist of county council authorities who have to submit themselves to re-election and the other half of members who have not to submit themselves to reelection. Whatever it is, it is a better tribunal if you have half the tribunal consisting of justices who are in an independent position and used to exercising judicial functions. Therefore I do press with all respect on the Government that 979 it would be better to accept this Amendment. It would also give us the advantage of uniformity—that is to say, instead of one county council delegating and another not delegating, it would mean they would all have to delegate. We should not leave the whole of this matter to the county council, which is not the proper body, as it seems to me, to deal with the judicial questions that must arise, and consequently I beg to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel

EARL PEEL

My Lords, may I say one word in support of Lord Jessel's Amendment? I was rather strengthened in my support of that Amendment by listening to the letters which the noble Marquess read out from the associations of county councils and borough councils, because both bodies, I think, said they wished to be the licensing authority. If that really is their wish it is obvious that the Amendment of the noble Marquess will be a dead letter, because if you leave them the liberty of delegating their functions or retaining them, and they have expressed their desire to exercise these functions, it is easy to see that they will not delegate them, in which case the Amendment of the noble Marquess will have no effect.

I listened carefully to these letters, and, so far as I could understand them the desire of the county councils and borough councils was rather to have some say or control over the matter of licensing these tracks in connection with congestion of traffic, amenities, schools, and so on. As I understand it, under the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess these things are very largely secured, because you have half of this body appointed from the county councils who will be able very vigorously to express the views of the county councils on these points. The noble Marquess knows well it is a very common method for county councils and similar bodies to send representatives to sit on all kinds of other bodies, and great attention is paid to what they say, and I think this question will really be met by the representations that these gentlemen as members of that body will be able to make to their magisterial colleagues.

Listening rather carefully to the letters which the noble Marquess read out, it 980 seemed to me they did not deal at all with that very important point of whether they are the bodies who ought to exercise these judicial functions. That is a point of the greatest importance, and I would draw the attention of the noble Marquess to the fact that these questions were not mentioned in the letters which he read out. I was one of those who urged as strongly as I could on the previous stage the removal of this matter from the jurisdiction of the borough councils and the county councils altogether, and I hope the noble Marquess will not be too much moved by the representations made in these letters. It is reasonable that bodies should not disclaim any duties which are to be thrown upon them, and I hope the noble Marquess will take the wider view and recognise the undesirability of bringing this question into local politics and mixing up administrative and judicial duties. I hope that he will lend a favourable ear to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jessel.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, your Lordships will notice that later on there is an Amendment on the Order Paper standing in my name, but if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, should be accepted by His Majesty's Government or carried by your Lordships' House that Amendment which I propose to move would be more or less unnecessary. Therefore, your Lordships will perhaps permit me to say a word or two on what is in the mind of the London County Council on this point. In regard to Lord Jessel's Amendment we feel somehow that delegation ought to carry with it a certain amount of discretion; that you do not delegate merely by ordering. On the other hand, we feel that the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill does not give us all that we should like. The noble Marquess will not expect too much gratitude in regard to the passing of Bills, but if I may be permitted to point out what our difficulty is it will explain the Amendment which I may be called upon to move later.

If the matter is not carried further than he has proposed in the Government Amendment we feel that confusion and misunderstanding are bound to arise. A county council may desire to delegate their powers to a standing joint com- 981 mittee, but that standing joint committee may refuse to accept. Thus there may be prolonged and useless negotiations and discussions as to the basis of power which shall be delegated, and generally throughout the country there would ensue a state of uncertainty and confusion. Therefore we feel that if these powers are delegated it should be an obligation on the part of the body to whom they are delegated to accept that responsibility. The general case has been well and sufficiently put by the three noble Lords who have spoken, and I will not detain your Lordships by repeating good arguments, but if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is not accepted I shall be compelled to ask your Lordships to consider the Amendment that stands in my name.

LORD BAYFORD

My Lords, this Amendment is identical, or almost identical, with the one that appeared in my name on the Committee stage. I put it down at the instance of the committee of the County Councils Association. The Amendment was drafted by a committee of that Association of which I was not a member, but I was asked to put the Amendment down officially on behalf of the Association. When the Amendment came on I defended it to the best of my ability. I used those arguments which I thought would most commend the Amendment to your Lordships. I thought they were good arguments, but they appear not to have been the same arguments which led the committee of the County Councils Association to ask me to put down the Amendment originally, and I am quite ready to admit that I stated the case on behalf of relegation to the standing joint committee with more force than I think members of that committee would have done themselves. However, the Amendment as it is now on the Paper is the Amendment which has been asked for and which is desired by the County Councils Association. It is their deliberate desire that they should have this power entrusted to the county councils, but that the county councils should be empowered to delegate it to any committee that they may wish if they find that it would not be possible for them to delegate it to the standing joint committee. That committee, by the nature of its function, would appear to be the most appropriate committee for the pur- 982 pose, for the legal reason that part of that committee consists of the county council but the other half consists of magistrates, so that it is not wholly a committee of the county council.

The sole reason why they put down this Amendment was that they wanted to have free choice to delegate these powers to any committee of the county council, including the standing joint Committee. That is the attitude that the County Councils Association has taken up. They have considered this matter carefully, and that is the decision at which they have arrived. Briefly it is that they wish to have power to delegate it to any committee which they form, including the standing joint committee. It is a very arguable point, I think, how far these functions are judicial and how far they are administrative. In Clause 6 they are practically entirely administrative. It is quite true that there is a question under Clause 15 of the taking away of a licence. That, I have no doubt, might be called a judicial function, but I think, in the working practice of the Bill if it becomes law, it will be found that nine-tenths of the powers to be executed by whatever committee they are entrusted to are not judicial but administrative. It is for that reason I think that the County Councils Association wish to keep that power in their hands. I admit that their reason is more one of expediency than of logic, but it is a decision which they have deliberately arrived at, and it is the decision that the Government have now expressed in the Bill, and I venture to hope that it is a decision which the House will support.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Londonderry will accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Jessel. When I said a few words upon this subject the other day I did so because I thought it would be an extremely dangerous thing to put this power into the hands of any elected body. It will be an extremely unpopular duty. Whatever is done is certain not to please, I will not say the majority hut a great number of people, and the result will be, when the election for the county council takes place, that there will be a large number of people who will say: "The county council were not obliged to submit the duty to the standing joint committee; they could 983 have kept it in their own hands. We see that when this question was discussed at the county council, this member and that voted for sending it to the joint committee; we shall therefore vote against them at this election. Because we think we have been injured in our amusements, or in our pockets or in some other way, we shall vote against these people." It was for that reason, and that reason alone, that I ventured to urge your Lordships to support the Amendment then suggested by my noble friend Lord Jessel, and I urge your Lordships to support the Amendment now in order to avoid any misunderstanding of that sort.

With regard to what my noble friend Lord Bayford has just said, I do not think we must follow the wishes of the county councils in everything on a question of this sort. They are naturally anxious to keep everything in their own hands; but what we are anxious to do is to see that they carry out their duties and that they are not subject to the unpopularity which is certain to come if they take upon themselves the duty of deciding upon these courses. I always have supported the Government upon this Bill, so I am not now speaking as an opponent of it in any way whatever.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, when the Bill was being discussed at an earlier stage I ventured to suggest that there are judicial elements in the function which is here under consideration, and that the standing joint committee was an existing statutory authority which dealt with matters involving difficulties where it was thought that the justices of the county might well co-operate with the members of the county council in doing what was best in the public interest. It was apparent at that time, I think, that the matter was one of principle, and there was a large measure of concurrence in the view that the standing joint committee could so act as to retain proper influence in the matter in the county councils without detriment to the judicial character of some of the functions to be exercised. It is impossible to emphasise the importance of that judicial element more strongly than was done by my noble friend Lord Reading on the other side. Really the noble Marquess emphasised it to a degree which could not have been 984 strengthened, and, as I understand the matter, His Majesty's Government recognise that there is a question of principle involved.

That is the question of principle which the noble Marquess has defined, and, there being this question of principle, and it being apparently the view of His Majesty's Government that the duties in question could properly be exercised by the standing joint committee, nevertheless an Amendment is framed which leaves it optional whether the question of principle shall be resolved in that way or not. I cannot help thinking that when this matter is considered further by His Majesty's Government, they will see that a question of principle should be dealt with as a question of principle, and that when we say it ought to be attended to the proper words to express that determination are that it shall be attended to. I hope that the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Jessel will be accepted by His Majesty's Government.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

My Lords, after what has been said by so many noble Lords I appeal to His Majesty's Government to meet the obvious views of a large number of members of the House by withdrawing the permissive power which they have proposed in the Amendment. I belong to a county which has enormous functions to discharge through the county council. Hitherto our elections have been carried on with practically no political or other bias but simply from the public point of view. I see a prospect that an element will be introduced into those elections wholly foreign to the purpose for which county councils were originally established. It is likely to have a very serious effect if we leave to the county council the right of deciding for themselves whether in this matter, which is a judicial matter, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, they will or will not delegate their powers. After what has been said the real sense of the House is obvious, and I appeal to the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, to give effect to it.

THE EARL OF COURTOWN

My Lords, we have heard a great deal from the county council's point of view on the question of giving powers to them to delegate their function to a standing 985 joint committee, but not a word has been said about county boroughs. A county borough, as your Lordships know, has no standing joint committee. If you are going to avoid the difficulties pointed out in the case of county councils by putting this power of licensing entirely in the hands of elected bodies you must also deal with the county boroughs. If it is right to leave the power in the hands of an elected body like a county borough council, it is surely right to leave it in the hands of an elected body like a county council. I think it is only proper that power should be given to the county council to delegate their powers if they so desire and they should not be bound by Acts of Parliament to do this. May I remind your Lordships of the Amendment which I ventured to propose in the Committee stage, which I am sorry His Majesty's Government have not been able to adopt, to include non-county boroughs? I have not troubled your Lordships by putting down the same Amendment again, but I earnestly appeal to the noble Marquess to take up the matter with the Home Secretary so that before the Bill is finally disposed of this matter may be considered again. I would like to mention Harrogate as an instance. The question of licensing will be in the hands of the county council, which meets at a considerable distance. I think it is desirable that local authorities in a place like Harrogate should have the power of licensing rather than a county council sitting some distance away.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I submit that the importance of the judicial function of the licensing authority under this Bill has been somewhat exaggerated. County councils and local authorities have exercised judicial functions for years. The London County Council has been acting as the licensing authority for public music and dancing since it was established. I admit that for the first two or three years it was somewhat erratic, but having been corrected by the High Court once or twice its conduct in these proceedings has been most decorous and, if I may say so, judicial. I have had the privilege of appearing before the county council and no one could in any way criticise the manner in which they have discharged their duties. That duty in respect of granting licences is partly 986 administrative and partly judicial. Some years later there was further provision for authorities acting as the licensing authority for public music and dancing. I have never heard of any complaint of the manner in which local authorities have discharged that function. In addition, the county councils for a great number of years have exercised judicial functions under numerous Acts, have appeared before county councils at local inquiries and they have been conducted with as much decorum and fairness as any other inquiry. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that within the last two or three years county councils have had a most important judicial function conferred on them in the matter of adjusting boundaries of parishes, creating urban districts and of sometimes having to abolish parishes. So far as I know there has been no complaint of the way in which that function has been discharged.

When it is said that in respect of these licences there may be an element of impropriety in a county council acting as a licensing authority, it seems to me that these instances prove that the objection is not a good one. Difficulty would arise if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is carried. He speaks of uniformity. The last speaker asked a question about the position of county boroughs. They have no standing joint committee. The Police are under the watch committee. In their case the authority would have to be conferred upon the watch committee which consists of members of the borough council. You cannot get uniformity and I do not think it is a subject in which uniformity much matters. I think the proposal of the Government is quite a fair one and I hope that they will adhere to their Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I was impressed by what I may term the ethical part of the speech of the noble and learned Marquess opposite, but I should like to point out that while this clause may be all very well for people south of the Tweed—or it may not be—there is no standing joint committee in Scotland. Therefore I hope the noble Marquess will arrange with the Home Office and the Scottish Office to insert some provision so that the law may be to all intents and purposes the same in the North as in the South.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that the debate to which we have listened has been a very interesting one. It has ranged over a somewhat wide area. The noble Duke who spoke last raised a point in connection with Scotland. I would ask him to be good enough to raise that point again when we come to the clause dealing with the application of the Bill to Scotland and my noble friend Lord Strathcona will then endeavour to give him an answer. The Amendment put down by the Government to Clause 4 proposes to give power to a county council to delegate its functions under this Bill to the standing joint committee. My noble friend Lord Jessel has moved an Amendment, which your Lordships are now considering, to require a county council in every case to delegate its functions to the standing joint committee. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is to make the power of delegation mandatory instead of discretionary.

As your Lordships are aware I had an opportunity, for which I am most grateful, of meeting the noble Lords who spoke on this Amendment on an earlier stage of this Bill. They were good enough to come and discuss with me at the Home Office the implications, the influence and the action of this clause which we are now discussing. I had hoped that the argument which I was able, with my advisers, to put before them would have had more effect upon them than it has done. Whilst I need hardly say to the noble Lords who sit opposite me that I am not expecting any gratitude, still I had hoped that the modifications which we were prepared to accept and embody in the Bill would have given greater pleasure to noble Lords than they appear to have done.

Compulsory delegation by county councils is tantamount to placing the functions directly on standing joint committees, and on behalf of the Government I am bound to say that we see very strong objection to any such proposal. If the delegation to standing joint committees is to be compulsory, surely the correct course would be to confer the licensing powers directly on the standing joint committees. There seems to be no virtue in the proposal that the licensing authority should be the county council, 988 but that the county council should be compelled to delegate its functions to the standing joint committee. In the second place if this Amendment is accepted the House will have accepted the principle that in English counties the licensing functions should not be exercised by the locally elected body, but by a body consisting partly of elected and partly of non-elected members. But the mover of this Amendment does not propose that the same principle should apply to English county boroughs or to Scottish counties or burghs which have no standing joint committee. If county councils are not to be allowed to exercise the licensing functions if they so desire, I think it may be said that neither should county borough councils be allowed to do so, and the Government could riot advise the House to accept an Amendment which proposes to treat counties on one basis and county boroughs on a quite different basis.

As I have already explained, we believe that the licensing functions under the Bill can properly be exercised by local authorities, who are in fact the bodies best fitted for the purpose. We understand, from the communications which I have read to your Lordships in the form of a letter and in the form of a resolution, that a large number of county councils desire themselves to exercise the powers conferred on them in the Bill and will not delegate these powers to the standing joint committees. The noble Marquess who spoke on this Amendment has put forward very carefully his considered opinion that this is a matter which should not come before the county councils because of their elective character. When I heard the noble Marquess make that speech I was inclined to say that for a great many years past it has been my firm belief that the Party to which I have the honour to belong are always much more inclined to trust the people of this country than the Party to which the noble Marquess himself belongs; but I was sorry to hear that my noble friends with whom I fought the battle in the House of Commons for many years in days gone by, Lord Peel, the great protagonist of democracy, and Lord Banbury, the representative of the man in the street, should have gone so far as to show a greater 989 distrust of county councils than even the noble Lord opposite.

I am bound to say that speaking for myself—and I am glad to put forward an Amendment for the Government in this connection—I have complete faith in the democracy of this country. I am quite sure in my mind that these duties should be administered by the elected bodies of this country, and that the modification which is given to them by the power to delegate their authority to the standing joint committee is a modification which gives them a latitude which they are quite entitled to have. My noble friend Lord Midleton spoke of the county council of which he has very wide experience. I would venture, as one who certainly has not had the experience in connection with county councils which he himself has had, to suggest that the duties of county councils, like the duties of every other public body, and I might also say the duties of every individual, have increased in enormous proportions during the last few years. County councils now find themselves confronted with duties with which in years gone by they never contemplated they would be confronted. It is not as if county councils were unfamiliar with controversy. There are controversies in county councils on matters which have nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and I cannot believe that a matter of this description, which may be contentious and may be difficult to deal with, is one which should be removed from a democratic assembly, who after all are representative of the population of the county which they govern.

The scheme of this Bill has been criticised on various grounds. It has been said that if local authorities are made the licensing authority for betting, very undesirable issues will thereby be introduced into local politics. I would venture to suggest that the terms of the Bill minimise these potential dangers in a number of ways. First of all by making a licence last for seven years instead of for one year; thus the issues could come up in local politics only at long intervals. In the whole of the London County Council area there are only ten tracks. All these will have a five years moratorium and therefore the question will arise only at seven-yearly intervals. The same is true of most of the other areas. 990 Secondly, the licensing authorities will have nothing to do with the morality of betting. They can refuse a licence only on certain grounds which are specified in the Bill and will have to state in writing the reasons for their refusal. Again, the scheme has been criticised on the ground that while the function of the licensing of tracks may be properly entrusted to local authorities, the function of licensing tracks for betting is not properly a matter for the local authority but should be performed by the Police. I venture to observe in reply to this criticism that there would be no dog track racing without betting. Licensing a track for betting is tantamount to licensing the erection of a track. Even if the function of the local authority were limited to licensing the erection of a track, they would have to take into account exactly the same considerations as are specified in Clause 4 of the Bill.

I hope that your Lordships will consider this Amendment on its merits. We feel very strongly that this is a duty which should be conferred on county councils with the latitude which the Amendment I have put on the Order Paper after the Committee stage gives to those county councils. We feel that this is the best way in which the Bill, when it becomes an Act, can be administered. I am sorry, therefore, that on behalf of the Government I must refuse the Amendment moved by my noble friend behind me.

LORD JESSEL

I am very sorry to intervene again, but I am afraid I am not convinced by the reply of the noble Marquess, and I would like to call your Lordships' attention to one of the most powerful speeches made on this question by Lord Amulree on the Second Reading. He said: A non-elected body has in many respects qualifications for this kind of duty which are not perhaps possessed by an elected body. It would be disastrous if organised bodies of bookmakers were to intervene in local elections and spend large sums of money in furthering their own views. Moreover, the substitution of justices for the county council and county borough council would be in keeping with precedent. Under the Racecourse Licensing Act of 1879 the justices in Quarter Sessions are the licensing authority, and it would save confusion if the justices were to become the licensing authority under the Bill as well. 991 I do not think that any more potent argument could be put forward.

LORD AMULREE

Will my noble friend read the words which preceded those which he has read?

LORD SNELL

My Lords, naturally the local bodies desire to ensure that their expenses will not be unduly increased by any liability of this kind. It is provided in the Bill that payment to local authorities by the holder of the betting licence may be an annual fee not exceeding £50, which is a very considerable amount. But I want to ask the noble Marquess a question upon this. If powers are delegated to a standing joint committee and their expenses are defrayed by the delegating council, what is the Government's proposal as regards the destination of the proceeds of licensing fees payable under Clause 8 (4)? Also what about the expenses when a licence is refused? because, if the standing joint committee should see fit to refuse a licence, that will only be after considerable inquiry, and perhaps negotiation involving expense. It would seem that there should be some fee attached to application as well as to the granting of the licence, in order that the local authorities should not find themselves saddled with expenses for refusal.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord's question is that the ex- 994 penses of the standing joint committee must fall on the county council. They have no funds of their own, and therefore the expenses must fall on the county council. But in view of what the noble Lord has said I will certainly make inquiries as to these fees and their destination, and I shall probably be able to say something on that point on Third Reading.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, in form a standing joint committee might be able to refuse to exercise the powers which the county council wished to delegate to it, but I think it will be found in practice that this will probably never occur, because the standing joint committee consists half of county councillors and the rest of nominated persons, and it seems hardly likely that a body consisting half of county councillors would refuse to carry out duties allocated to them by the county council. But I agree that there is a point of substance in what the noble Lord says, and I will enquire into it and on Third Reading give him a considered answer, because this is a point into which my advisers have not gone very closely.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved proposes that an applicant for a licence should give notice to the local authority of the district in which the track is situated and to the responsible authority under any town-planning scheme which affects the track. These two authorities have the statutory right under subsection (3) of Clause 5 of making representations to the licensing authority; but the Urban District Councils Association have represented that these bodies would not be in a position to make representations unless they also received notification of the proposed application. The Bill requires an applicant to advertise his application in at least two newspapers circulating in the locality in which the track is situated, and I was advised that such publication would be sufficient to enable the local authorities to inform themselves of the application. The noble Lord who has 997 moved this Amendment seems to think that this is putting undue work on the local authorities, and that they might have difficulty in discovering what they want to know by looking through the newspapers, and that it would occupy an undue proportion of their time. I am sure it gives me great pleasure to be able to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I am not certain that we always find ourselves in agreement, and it gives me additional pleasure on that account.

LORD ARNOLD

My Lords, may I be allowed to thank the noble Marquess very much for kindly accepting this Amendment? May I also observe that this is the first Amendment which I have moved in your Lordships' House that has been accepted?

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, may I be allowed to say one word as regards the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Marquess? I wish to think him on behalf of those authorities for whom I spoke before for the concession he has made in this Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, the Government Amendment proposes that no local authority shall he entitled to be heard as objectors to the grant of a licence if the licensing authority are a committee of that local authority, or a joint committee including persons appointed by that local authority. The noble Lord proposes to amend this, so as to allow a county council, which has delegated its licensing functions to the standing joint committee, to be heard as objectors before the standing joint committee. Where a county council or county borough council delegates its licensing functions to a committee of the council, it would obviously be wrong that the council should be able to appear before its own committee as witnesses for one side in an issue which the committee has to consider impartially. The objection is equally strong in the case of a county council and standing joint committee. The standing joint committee consists, as to one-half, of members of the county council. If the county council were to appear before the standing joint committee as an objector to the grant of a licence, then by implica- 999 tion one-half of the members of the committee—namely, the county councillors—would be regarded as having pre-judged the issue which it was their duty to consider impartially after hearing the arguments on both sides. A situation of that kind could not fail to destroy public faith in the impartiality of the licensing authority.

There is the less justification for the present proposal, because the smaller local authorities (such as urban and rural district councils, non-county borough councils, and Metropolitan borough councils) can make representations to the licensing authority. One or other of these smaller authorities represents the interests of every locality in the counties. No part of any county is left without a local authority which can speak on its behalf before the licensing authority. In most counties this local authority will be an urban or rural district council, in London it will be a Metropolitan borough council. On these grounds, therefore, we feel that the Amendment is not only undesirable but is also unnecessary, and I would ask the House not to accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I am glad to accept the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord.

LORD SANDERSON

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess very much.

LORD SANDERSON

My Lords, the next three Amendments are consequential.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 15 empowers the licensing authority to revoke a licence in respect of a track if, on a report made to them by the accountant or upon a refusal of the accountant to give a certificate to the effect that satisfactory statements of account have been submitted to him by the operator and that the accounts are complete and accurate and that the totalisator has been maintained in proper working order and properly operated, they are satisfied that any totalisator has been maintained or operated otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule. The Amendment proposes to delete this paragraph and to substitute for it a provision which would empower the licensing authority to revoke a licence in respect of an improperly operated totalisator only if the operator of the totalisator has been convicted of an offence in respect of its operation.

The noble Lord's Amendment instead of simplifying the Bill would unduly restrict the powers of the licensing authority and as a result would weaken the safeguards provided in the Bill designed to secure the proper operation of the totalisator. I think your Lordships will recognise that cases may arise where an accountant will not feel justified in giving the certificate referred to in paragraph 8 of the First Schedule, either because he has not received accurate accounts or because he is not satisfied with the operation of the totalisator; but if the Amendment were accepted it would be impossible for the local authority to revoke the licence unless the operator had committed One of the offences specified in the Bill. The essential part of the scheme of supervision over the operation of the totalisator proposed in the Bill is the check to be exercised by the accountant and his technical adviser over the detailed and day-to-day working of the totalisator. The certificate to be given by the accountant or any report which he may submit to the licensing authority is the material on which the licensing authority will have to rely in exercising their function of general supervision. The Amendment of my noble friend will make nugatory this scheme of control. The licensing authority would be placed in a 1006 very invidious position on receiving an unsatisfactory report from the accountant if they were unable to take any action unless it was possible to secure the conviction of the operator of some offence. I think your Lordships will see that the Amendment would unduly restrict the powers of the licensing authority and would mean that a totalisator could be carried on although it was being carried on in an unsatisfactory manner, and the licensing authority would have no authority because they could not secure the conviction of the operator. On these grounds I regret that the Amendment cannot be accepted.