§ 3. Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether he has now considered the position arising out of a recent decision as to the legality of whist drives being held for prizes; and can he make a statement?
§ 9. Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that no action with regard to whist drives has been taken since the judgment in 1912 until the present day, he will continue the policy of his predecessors and allow this harmless amusement to continue?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe decision referred to is only one of a series of judicial decisions given at intervals during the last 20 years by which individual whist drives held under particular conditions have been declared unlawful. I have gone carefully into the history of the matter in the Home Office records and find that certain instructions were issued to the Metropolitan Police by my predecessors when they found themselves confronted by a similar situation. Those instructions have never been modified, were confirmed by me in 1925, and I find myself still in complete agreement with them. I will quote from instructions given on the 20th March, 1913:
Proceedings are not to be instituted by the police, except when there is reason to believe that a whist drive—whether on the partner system or not—is a cloak for gambling of a serious kind or for profit making out of gambling";and again on the 30th March, 1921:I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that in his opinion whist drives as at present ordinarily conducted 316 in public halls are an innocent form of amusement and are free from the essential element of the mischief which accompanies gambling. Though it is possible that they may develop in some direction which may make them really mischievous, police action for their suppression does not at present appear to be called for. It appears also to him very difficult—if nut impossible—to draw a sound distinction from a police point of view according to the amount expended by the promoters in prizes; and he thinks that the police should not interfere unless they have reason to think that actual harm is being done.I believe the House will share my view that it is better that the matter should be dealt with on these lines rather than by attempting an amendment of the law which would be highly controversial and would almost inevitably open up the question of gaming in all its aspects. The instructions which I have quoted were issued only to the Metropolitan Police, and no difficulty appears to have arisen in the area of that force. I have no jurisdiction in a matter of this kind over other forces, but if the view embodied in the instructions from which I have quoted commends itself to this House, I have no doubt that due note will be taken of it by the appropriate authorities and that they will govern their future action accordingly.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYDoes the right hon. Gentleman not think the whole position has been altered very radically, from an administrative point of view, by the Betting Duty imposed two years ago? Surely that will sway him and his officials in carrying out the present theoretical law?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI really do not think the Belting Duty has anything whatever to do with it.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYBut, surely, if gaming was so illegal before the Betting Duty was instituted, the recognition of gaming by this Government alters the situation?
§ Mr. DAYHas the right hon. Gentleman considered circularising the rest of the authorities in England with a copy of his opinion?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSAs I say. I have no authority over the other forces, but I think, if the answer which I have given and which will probably receive the approval of the House, is reported at length, other forces will take note of it.