HC Deb 07 November 1934 vol 293 cc1192-209

(1) A lottery promoted in any area for the purpose of providing funds for charitable objects within such area shall be deemed not to be an unlawful lottery, but the conditions specified in the next succeeding Sub-section shall be observed in connection with the promotion and conduct of the lottery, and if any of those conditions is broken every person concerned in the promotion or conduct of the lottery shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge.

(2) The conditions referred to in the preceding Sub-sections are that—

  1. (a) The whole proceeds of the lottery after deducting only expenses incurred for printing and stationery and the provision of prizes, and being less than one-fifth of the proceeds thereof shall be paid to such persons as may be specified by the local authority for the area in which the lottery is held for the purpose of being applied to charitable objects.
  2. (b) None of the prizes in the lottery shall be money prizes and the total value of the prizes in any lottery shall not exceed the sum of five hundred pounds.
  3. (c) Before selling any tickets or chances, the promoters shall by registered letter give to the chief officer of police a notice, signed by each of them, stating the purposes for which they intend to promote the lottery, and the full names and addresses of each of the promoters, together with a certificate from the local authority of the area in which the lottery is to be promoted to the effect that approval has been given thereto;
  4. (d) Tickets or chances in the lottery shall not be sold or issued, nor shall the result of the lottery be declared except within the area approved by the local authority in respect of such lottery;
  5. (e) No local authority shall approve the promotion of more than three lotteries under this section in any area or section of an area under its control during any calendar year;
  6. (f) In this Sub-section the expression "local authority" means any of the following councils, that is to say, the council of a county borough, metropolitan borough, or county district, and the common council of the city of London.—[Captain Heilgers.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.50 p.m.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause is brought forward by my hon. Friends and myself to give a chance to hospitals and reputable charities to organise reasonably-sized lotteries, in addition to those very small lotteries provided for under this Bill in Clause 21. This new Clause has the full support and backing of the British Hospitals Association. At the present time in some areas draws are permitted by the police authorities for hospitals and other charities, but in other areas they are not. The important point is that, if this Bill be passed in its present form, then none but the smallest lotteries will be permitted to help our hospitals. I have already earlier this evening stated that if Clause 21 be not altered, the hospital in which I am interested alone will lose between £1,500 and £2,000 a year. They will lose it because they will not be allowed to sell tickets before the day of the draw. I want to draw attention to another aspect. We used to have for our hospital a Christmas draw which made between £800 and £1,000, though it has recently been discouraged by the police authorities. We are now in this position that we have to have a competition of skill. Perhaps I am arguing against my own case, but, as a result of that change, we are now losing £500 a year compared with what we used to make.

I am not saying that this Clause is perfectly drafted. Perhaps some people might desire alterations in one way or another, but I do claim that it provides greater safeguards than in any other Clause in the Bill. For instance, there is no loophole for unscrupulous promoters, about whom we have heard from the Home Secretary. The local authority has first to approve before any lottery can take place. The police have to be notified. Only three lotteries are allowed in any one area, and tickets may only be sold in that area. When you remember that the average price of tickets sold in these draws only amount to sixpence or a shilling, no one can claim that social demoralisation can be brought about by the expenditure of 1s. 6d. or 3s. a year. I rather fear that our opponents will say that as a result of any such scheme subscriptions to hospitals would fall off. When we had our Christmas draw we found not only that the subscriptions, but also the contributory scheme went up, simply because these draws gave the necessary advertisement to the needs of the hospital. No hospital can ever have enough money if it is to give the best treatment. Although I have been talk- ing chiefly about hospitals this is a question which does not concern them only; it applies to any reputable charity, swill as St. Dunstans, the National Lifeboat Institution, or to take a very recent case the regrettable disaster at the Gresford colliery. All these objects could be aided under the new Clause; they cannot be aided under the Bill. If lotteries of a reasonable size were allowed I think that people would support them from local patriotism and would probably be drawn away from supporting the Irish sweepstake. I do not say that the new Clause is perfect but I claim and I ask favourable consideration for it on these grounds. In the new Clause we are providing a fair foundation for a reasonable scheme which will ensure the future prosperity of our hospitals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give it his earnest consideration.

11.57 p.m.


At this late hour I am afraid that the new Clause is not likely to get the consideration which it deserves. I only want to say that I am of the opinion that the maintenance of our hospitals should be a national duty and that they, or indeed any other charity, ought not to have to depend on lotteries or draws for their support. It is the duty of the State and municipalities to care for their own people, and with a national income of £8,000,000,000 to suppose that hospitals will be able to meet all their needs through lotteries is fantastic. There are certain areas, far removed from London, purely industrial areas, which have their own hospitals, supported locally, because of the industrial demand for a hospital. The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the hospital at Bury St. Edmunds. I live in an industrial area which has its own hospital, and every year they have a weekly event, the whole proceeds of which goes to the hospital. Some munificent friend makes them a gift. This year it was a motor car, the tickets were sold at 1s. each, and at the end of the week someone won a motor car and the hospital received £900. The tickets were issued and sold during the whole of the week of that hospital rally. I have been a member of a hospital management committee for 20 years, and I am glad to say that we have never depended on lotteries or draws for main- tenance, but as no two districts are quite alike or adopt the same methods for assisting their hospital, I do not see any reason why a hospital which adopts this kind of method should not be allowed to do so. The hospitals have declared against big sweepstakes, but they have agreed to draws of the kind proposed in the new Clause, which are purely localised.

The new Clause provides that a certificate must first be obtained from the local authority and that the chief of police must be warned of the lottery by registered letter, and that there must be no money prizes. Almost everything that an ordinary person can think of has been arranged for and if such a lottery were permitted I do not think that it would lower the tone of the district. While I give support to the Clause I would not mind some of the figures being severely reviewed. The maximum value of prizes suggested is £500. A decent motor car can be got for £200, and I would not object to the amount of the maximum being reduced to £200. It is also suggested that three draws might be allowed in a year in any area. I think one draw a year ought to be sufficient for any one area. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that outside the big lottery there is room for small draws of a localised character held exclusively for the benefit of the local hospital, I do not think that any hon. Members would disagree with his decision. It is because I believe that the new Clause contains the germs of a possible arrangement to allow what has happened for many years to continue, that I support it. I should hesitate to lend my support to the general idea that draws and lotteries ought to be the main means of financing our hospitals and other institutions. There is, however, something in the new Clause which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to view from a sympathetic standpoint.

12.2 a.m.


Perhaps it will save time if I explain the attitude of my right hon. Friend. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the new Clause put his case rather too high, because his final words were that this was the way to ensure the future prosperity of our hospitals. I do not think that is really the case. He must have meant to say "my hospital." It is possible that in some areas some hospitals have chosen to adopt this method to raise a considerable proportion of their funds, but it is not true to say that the future prosperity of British hospitals generally depends upon the adoption of such a Clause. The larger hospitals have hinted that they do not want any such scheme. The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds explained that under such a Clause it would be possible to have lotteries for institutions like St. Dunstans and the National Lifeboat Institution. If there is any suggestion of that kind it means throwing the whole thing back into a financial lottery which the Committee has already rejected. We cannot agree to the Clause in itself, and I should like the Committee to look at it carefully.

The Bill says that lotteries are unlawful except two kinds, the small ones connected with fetes and bazaars and those connected with clubs and institutions. This is a proposal to introduce a third category—the charitable. I ask the Committee to see how such a scheme would word. The local authority is to decide whether there is to be a lottery three times a year. I think the pressure on the local authorities from the various charitable organisations—whatever that may mean; there is no definition; some people's charity does begin at home—will be such that they will have to decide between competing interests. One small county district might have no difficulty, because there would be one only obvious big charity in it, but the proposal does not cover only county districts. It covers councils of county boroughs and councils of metropolitan boroughs. The councils of metropolitan boroughs would find it difficult to decide between the claims of the charities in their areas. What standard must they take? If a clause like this be proposed, it is worth sifting one or two of these questions. Is the standard to be the financial status of the charity concerned? Is it the urgency of its financial need? That would involve someone going into the accounts of the charities and seeing which is the most hard up. To have a system of this kind in each area must mean different policies being adopted by different local authorities.


Has not the system worked pretty well in the case of the King Edward Fund? Has not the allotment of the proceeds of that fund been done very carefully in the past, and cannot that sort of system be applied here?


That system has nothing to do with lotteries. It is based on a system of subscriptions given for the hospitals. This new Clause has nothing to do with hospitals; it refers to charitable objects. It covers a multitude of possibilities. I can imagine no way in which it can be satisfactorily dealt with if you allow every area to have its own policy. We had a discussion on an earlier Clause in regard to different policies in licensing areas, which are much larger districts than is proposed here. In that case they have only one question to deal with. Here they will have a multitude of questions. The suggestion to limit the amount of the prizes and the rest of the new Clause would have to be considered more carefully than it has been considered so far. The trouble, too, I am afraid, is that some of my hon. Friends, in their enthusiasm for their local charities—for which we must admire them—forget that in the past they have been dealing with perfectly straight organisations properly run. No doubt my hon. and gallant Friend has been instrumental in running one. The trouble is that once you allow this sort of system to grow up you do, in spite of all the safeguards which may be introduced, make an opening for bogus charities. There is plenty of trouble already with bogus charities; we do not want to give one more opening to them. While, of course, any appeal for charities must touch a certain chord in anyone's heart, this is not a Clause which my right hon. Friend can recommend for insertion in the Bill.

12.8 a.m.


I wish to put one or two considerations in favour of this new Clause before the Committee even at this late hour. It is supported by the hospitals, and for my part I should be satisfied to see it confined to hospitals, provided Christmas draws are allowed for other deserving objects. It is supported by the British Hospitals Association, which comprises 80 per cent. of the beds in hospitals numbering 75,000. It does not include the hospitals in the London area which are represented by a, different body and I understand that the great London hospitals are not particularly favourable to this scheme of lotteries. But this association representing hospitals in the provinces—some 60,000 or more beds—has informed me that, if the Bill as it stands becomes law, a very considerable number of hospitals throughout the length and breadth of the land will suffer. This Bill and these Amendments have come on rather rapidly and it has not been possible in the, time for the Association to prepare statistics to show how far hospitals generally up and down the country are dependent on lotteries or how for any particular hospital is so dependent But may I give the Committee a local instance because I believe it is to a large extent typical of these hospitals in general. I myself, I may say, have had a medical training and am not unacquainted with hospitals.

There is a cottage hospital in the town in which I live—Skegness. That is a small town and it has hard work in maintaining that hospital. Some years ago a system was instituted of holding an annual lottery for a "Baby Austin" motor car. The car was on exhibition in the town during the summer season when there were visitors about and of course the visitors were pleased to take chances in the lottery. Although that lottery was quite a small affair, I am informed by the secretary that the hospital is going to lose from £500 to £800 a year as a result of its discontinuance. It came to an end in 1932. Of course it had always been, strictly speaking, illegal but no objection had been raised to it previously and the hospital drew a steady income from it. I would like to say, however, that the hospital was by no means dependent entirely upon that lottery because there is a very good list of voluntary subscribers. The management also run a flag day and for this purpose they are given by the town council the best day in the year, namely, the August bank holiday. Then charitable people around Skegness run dances in aid of the hospital's funds and recently a lady resident got up an" American tea," all her friends worked hard to make the function a success, with the result that she raised a sum of which was considered very good indeed. I give these instances to show how important a source of income these lotteries can be to small country hospitals. I have the assurance of the secretary of this representative association that if no provision is made in the Bill for the continuance of the lotteries many hospitals throughout the land will suffer a serious setback.

I would point out to the Committee that in Part I of the Bill we are legalising betting on a very large scale. In Part II we are taking away from certain persons the opportunity to run lotteries. Who are those persons? In the main they are the hospital committees. Why should large sections of the population be provided with betting facilities on two or three days of the week throughout the year and these hospitals denied the right to hold one small lottery a year in aid of their funds? Is any social reformer going to say that he can point to a man or woman who dates his or her demoralisation from the taking of a half-crown ticket in a seaside raffle of the kind I have described? I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to consider the injury which he is doing to the hospitals. The particular hospital which I have in mind is in need of extension. Skegness is a healthy place, but it is a, growing place and even the healthiest places require hospitals to deal with accident cases and the like. If the hospital committee is unable to make the required extension it means that the hospital is overcrowded and the nursing staff are compelled to work long hours, sometimes remaining on duty until 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning when they should be finished at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock. It means that the doctors have to work under unfair conditions and that the patients cannot get proper attention. It means additional suffering. Why then should the hospital committees be deprived of this opportunity which no one has alleged has ever been abused? The ladies and gentlemen who run the lotteries are not doing so for private gain. They have their ordinary occupations and they give their time and generally a good deal of their money to the work of keeping the hospitals going.

If the Bill be passed in its present form, it will strike a blow at hundreds of hospitals all over the country, and therefore I hope that my right hon. Friend will give consideration to this matter before the Report stage. The Under-Secretary adduced certain arguments as to difficulties which would arise if the new Clause were inserted in the Bill. For my own part I do not think that the hospitals would object to being limited to one raffle per year, and certainly I should not object to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that the prize should be limited to £200 in value. The Under-Secretary suggested that these little lotteries might develop into great national affairs. Well, I do not know that a "Baby Austin" reposing on the seashore at Skegness is going to attract national attention and greatness. The hospital authorities, no doubt, would be pleased if it did, but I am afraid that its appeal would always be purely local. Possibly visitors from Leicester or Sheffield or Nottingham might buy tickets, and on their return to those towns might sell the tickets to others. But if my right hon. Friend liked to put on further regulations to deal with that or other points I do not suppose there would be any objection. I certainly should be pleased to have any concession. I think we ought to remember, however, that liberty can not only be legislated out of existence but can be regulated out of existence as well. I suggest in this case that there is a very good example against over-regulating. These lotteries, as I say, have been going on for some time. Of course, they have been illegal, but the blind eye has been turned towards them hitherto. There is a good reminder of the blind eye not far away—I refer to the statue of the famous sailor—and I think the blind eye might very well be turned towards any little irregularities that might arise from summer visitors taking tickets away with them. I should be willing to accept any reasonable Amendments confining these lotteries to local areas, and I feel that it would be impossible for them to develop into anything like national lotteries. I earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do one more graceful act to-night by promising to try to devise between now and the Report stage some way of maintaining under the Bill the liberty which in these matters hospital authorities have enjoyed in practice for many years.

Captain HUNTER

I greatly appreciate the interest of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in the main hospital in the constituency which I represent, but apparently his knowledge of the local conditions was not sufficiently wide to enable him to make the point which I desire to put forward. In the case of that hospital a lottery such as this new Clause would cover is run in this way: a large open-air carnival is organised every year, and the weather is an important consideration, and the only method of insuring against loss in that respect is to sell tickets ahead. That can only be done by providing an inducement to people to buy tickets and the inducement in this case is the offer of a motor car to the holder of the lucky ticket. That proceeding which undoubtedly comes within the scope of a lottery, is absolutely necessary in order to safeguard an important money-making event for an important charity. The event has nothing to do with lotteries, but none the less this draw is the only way of making that effort for the hospital really successful. This is only an instance of similar proceedings in many other places. Unless the Home Secretary will give favourable consideration to something on the lines of this new Clause a great deal of the machinery needed for raising funds for hospitals and other valuable agencies will be destroyed. Late as is the hour I feel that this is a point which ought to be brought to the attention of the Committee.

12.25 a.m.


I should like to join in the very reasonable, carefully considered and modest appeal which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brigg (Captain Hunter) made to the right hon. Gentleman. I have had a close association with hospital administration in one of our great cities, and am proud of that. I know to what a large extent those institutions depend upon old-established and recognised processes of raising money. It would be a very serious departure in the working of our hospitals if they were to be precluded from following them, in order to carry on their work. I have a great respect for the Under-Secretary; I always admired the consistent attitude he took up before he became a Member of the Government, and how he always said the right thing at the appropriate moment. He has said the wrong thing to-night in replying on behalf of the Government against this Clause. What harm would it do anybody to have a lottery for the sale of an Austin Seven or anything else, in order to raise money for a local hospital? The local people love having something of the kind when the money is for an institution to which they are attached. In the smallest towns there are cottage hospitals, for which local people regard it as a social duty to do everything in their power. Why should there be all this intervention and interference with the rights of the people to raise money for hospitals in the benevolent and kindly way that has been followed for generations? We are over-legislating, and this Bill, not a very popular one as it stands, will be less popular if we prevent hospitals and benevolent institutions from prosecuting, without offence, their usual means of obtaining money.

The Home Secretary will do a service, and he and the Under-Secretary will be carving out a place for themselves, in the esteem of the community, if they allow these institutions to carry on in the old-fashioned English way of providing funds for hospitals. I strongly support the Clause, and I see no earthly reason why we should chop logic or split hairs about it. We want the hospitals of this country to continue on a voluntary basis, and we want every locality to feel that it is maintaining its own hospitals. How can that be done if we pass legislation of this kind? For the credit of the country, the Government and this Committee, I hope that this Clause will be accepted.

12.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE

I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward from the Government Front Bench. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we ought not to have allowed the custom which has grown up. Every part of the country has small lotteries to help their hospitals. If you go to agricultural shows in different parts of the country you will find there small cars which have to he drawn for in order to help the hospitals. Many people who go to these shows are very pleased to give small subscriptions to the hospitals by this means. What earthly harm can it do to anybody in the world to allow people to pay sixpence or a shilling as a subscription to the hospitals, and, in return for it, to have the chance of winning a small car? Why does the Home Secretary want to do this damage to the hospitals Does he realise what he is doing? There seems to be no reason for it except his own prejudice against lotteries of all sorts. He is so obstinate on the matter that he will not listen to any argument put forward in this House.

It is an abuse of the powers of this House that we should be called upon at this time of night to discuss a matter of this sort and that the Home Secretary should definitely refuse to consider before the Report stage what should be done and should say that he cannot do anything to prevent this damage being done to our hospitals. I hope even yet that he will reconsider this matter.

12.32 a.m.


I regret very much that what is really a very important Clause should fall to be discussed at so late an hour when we would all of us rather be doing something else. In apologising for intervening now I can say—as some of my hon. Friends cannot—that this is my first intervention in the Debate. I regard the Clause as very important indeed, and I think it is a great pity that it should be moved formally and formally dropped as so many Clauses are. I hope the hon. Member who moved it will press it to a division. I listened with the very greatest care to the speech which the Under-Secretary to the Home Office delivered in defence of the Bill. Although I have the greatest admiration for him as an unbending apostle in the cause of purity of all morals, I could not help feeling that his arguments were a little weak and, if I were not one of his admirers, I would say a little forced.

Let us take the arguments which he used. First of all, he said it would be a terrible task for the licensing authorities to decide whether or not to grant an application, and that we should have all sorts of corruption creeping in. I was rather sorry to see he had lost his confidence in the councils in a short forty-eight hours. The other day he was telling us how fitted those bodies were to decide all these questions. He was telling us that all the pressure of the greyhound authorities could not be brought to bear on them and that the councils would understand all the difficult little details. We must assume that he thought they were men of the highest ability and integrity. When it comes to little applications for hospitals, it suits his case to take an opposite point of view, and he says that he would not trust them in that two-penny-halfpenny matter. As a very great admirer of the Government, I do not think this absence of consistency and this forgetfulness will entirely increase their prestige. Among those of us who admire the Government and among the electors there must be some little bewilderment at this inconsistency.

That was the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument—that you can trust the councils when the Government want them to do a job of work, but you cannot trust them when anybody else wants them to do a job of work. His second argument was that if we had these hospital sweeps they might become practically a national sweepstake. Why should not they become a national sweep? I should be very glad if the Government took up that position, because the whole country wants something of the kind. Why on earth any National Government should prevent the country getting what it wants, I cannot for the life of me see. I say with the greatest respect that they ought to know better. I do feel that they should realise the awkward position in which they are putting their followers with regard to this matter. I have no interest in these things, in greyhounds and so on, but I do know what the people think. I took the trouble to go into my division and to call from house to house and to inquire what the people thought. Right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench would be surprised to hear what was said about them in connection with this matter. I have no intention to wound hon. Gentlemen, for whom I have the greatest admiration, although I do not sometimes understand their ways. On that point I merely say this. You refuse a national sweep and we cannot discuss that now, but this new Clause gives a half-way house. Surely you should accept what Providence has placed in your hands to deliver you out of your own folly. Besides, how can you get a national sweep when the prizes cannot exceed £2500?

The third argument which the Under-Secretary used—if I can take it as an argument—was this. He said it would be manifestly unfair that some hospitals should be left out of these sweepstakes. There can only be three applications. Of course, it is manifestly unfair. In the division for instance in which the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) lives there are only 108,000 people. Manifestly, we in Manchester would require far more lotteries in our division.


Bolton Royal Infirmary absolutely refuses to have anything to do with sweepstakes or lotteries.


I do not want to go into domestic affairs with the hon. Member. In his excellent opinion the people of Bolton will never have anything to do with gambling. I welcome that for it seems to me to be a very effective way of educating the public by an outstanding example of purity of conduct rather than by legislation. But the argument which the Under-Secretary used was this. He said that it was unfair to some places that there should be only three applications allowed whereas others would require far more. He has suggested a solution of his own problem. Why not leave the figure "three" out altogether and let there be as many applications as the people make? After all, if we can trust these local councils in the licensing of greyhound tracks, why cannot we trust to their discretion in this matter? I have never used the word "humbug" to an enemy, and so I do not wish to use it to a friend. What troubles me is that some people will not understand the nature of the conversion of the Under-Secretary on the road to Damascus. These people do not appreciate the extreme purity of his motives. They are so blind that they do not appreciate the compelling force of his logic. All I say is that it might be a good thing if the Government left this matter over at this late hour to continue it at some time later when it may be that they may have a better argument. But that is entirely by the way. We are dealing with a very serious matter about which the public feel deeply. We are doing ourselves damage in the country. I am talking with serious conviction on this matter. I regret having to vote against the Government on this Clause, and I hope they will not imagine that the only form of strength is not to make concessions. I think that they ought to make a reasonable concession. If the Government do not do so, the Measure will be unworkable and the law will be in greater chaos than it is at present.

12.41 a.m.


I will not keep the Committee more than a few minutes. I would like to direct attention to the alternative to this suggested new Clause. As I understand the ruling of your predecessor, Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing Clause 21, it was that no discussion could take place on that Clause if a discussion was to follow on this new Clause. Those who wanted a discussion on Clause 21 decided to discuss this Clause instead. Clause 21 which is the alternative to this Clause states that: (c) Tickets or chances in a lottery shall not be sold or issued, nor shall the result of the lottery be declared, except on the premises on which the entertainment takes place and during the progress of the entertainment; and (d) the facilities afforded for participating in lotteries shall not he the only, or the only substantial, inducement to persons to attend the entertainment. This new Clause provides a way out of the difficulty created by the wording of Clause 21, especially as it concerns hospitals and such like institutions. I submit that the figure mentioned in the new Clause—£500—far exceeds anything that the hospitals could enjoy by way of sweepstakes organised and promoted under Clause 21. It is evident to anyone that unless one was established in the centre of London, or the centre of the West End of London on a very particular occasion, it would be impossible to collect during the progress of an entertainment any sum comparable to the requirements of the institution or the hospital concerned. In this particular case it is bringing the whole question of charity by way of lotteries to assist hospitals into ridicule. I submit that the arguments used by those taking part in this discussion are unanswerable. We have in Sheffield great difficulties in the matter of deciding whether or not hospitals should enjoy the results of a national sweepstake or national lottery. The question of a national lottery having been disposed of, we must come down to the question of local lotteries. What is the position? We have a flag day which is not a lottery. We have some form of raising funds to help the hospital. It is a work which must be approved by the local watch committee and unfortunately in many instances the psychology of that committee in respect to that matter is so adverse that it has even refused the hospitals the right to have a flag day or anything comparable to sweepstakes. The attitude which Sheffield takes through its watch committee should be no reason why other parts of the country should suffer when they have been for many years dependent upon this form of charity.

I consider that this new Clause covers with less hampering considerations the real requirements of the country in this respect. It would be difficult for any organisation, no matter how much goodwill was at the back of their movement, to attempt to raise funds under Clause 21. Imagine what the position of the right hon. Gentleman who made a most marvellous appeal in Sheffield only a few weeks ago on behalf of the National Government would have been if the cost of that great meeting had had to be defrayed during the course of the entertainment. The right hon. Gentleman's speech would have been very considerably interrupted. It is folly to ask the hospitals of this country dependent on lotteries to be the subject of conditions in Clause 21. I do not think that it would be fair to ask the Home Secretary to accept this Clause just now, but I support the appeals made to him to reconsider the statement he has already made before the Report Stage.

12.47 a.m.


The time has come when this House should realise that hospitals should not be dependent at all on lotteries. It is a standing scandal that speeches should have to be made in this House in support of human institutions such as hospitals. I am inclined to think that people who can afford to make the greatest grants in support of hospitals are people who refuse to do so. In very depressed areas like South Wales where the miners receive no more than £100 a year in wages they subscribe their threepences and sixpences per week for the hospital. In places which are relatively well-to-do they resort to practices of this kind. It is a standing scandal, and I hope the Home Secretary will stand by his view in this matter.


Are there no lotteries?


So far as the miners are concerned, they make their contributions through the colliery office.


Are we to understand that in regard to the efficient hospitals in Cardiff and Swansea no local lotteries take place?


So far as my knowledge goes, we have none of these lotteries and scandal—at least for the cottage hospitals to which miners go. I do not believe that we have such lotteries either for the big hospitals. I think it is disgraceful that hospitals should be dependent upon that aid. The hospitals of this country should be placed under the Ministry of Health if they are in that plight.

12.49 a.m.


I do not think that I am called upon to apologise to the Committee even at this late hour if I say a few words on this subject. I think that there has been rather ungracious treatment of this Clause. I hope the Home Secretary will say something further this evening in order to ease a situation which I must confess I resent. I wish to associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey). I do not think that the Under-Secretary gave a single intelligent reason for not accepting the Clause or even offered some hope of re-consideration on Report. He certainly gave us one or two thoroughly unsound reasons in his reply, and I for one, if the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary cannot add anything to the original statement, will go into the Lobby in support of the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 99.

Division No. 389.] AYES. [10.13 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Perkins, Walter R. D.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Petherick, M.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Hanley, Dennis A. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Harbord, Arthur Power, Sir John Cecil
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western isles)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Ramsbotham, Herwald
Boulton, W. W. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Boyce, H. Leslie Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Hornby, Frank Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Horsbrugh, Florence Rickards, George William
Broadbent, Colonel John Howard, Torn Forrest Robinson, John Roland
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Rasbotham, Sir Thomas
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y) Hume, Sir George Hopwood Runge, Norah Cecil
Burghley, Lord Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Russell, Albert (Kirkcaidy)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Burnett, John George James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Butt, Sir Alfred Jamieson, Douglas Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Jesson, Major Thomas E. Salmon, Sir Isidore
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Salt, Edward W.
Carver, Major William H. Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Castlereagh, Viscount Ker, J. Campbell Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Savery, Samuel Servington
Christie, James Archibaid Law, Sir Alfred Scone, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Clayton, Sir Christopher Leech, Dr. J. W. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Colman, N. C. D. Liddell, Walter S. Slater, John
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Conant, R. J. E. Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cuntliffe- Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Cook, Thomas A. Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Cooke, Douglas Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Soper, Richard
Copeland, Ida Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Spens, William Patrick
Courtauid, Major John Sewell MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Stevenson, James
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry McCorquodale, M. S. Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Stourton, Hon. John J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. McKie, John Hamilton Sutcliffe, Harold
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Templeton, William P.
Dawson, Sir Philip Macmillan, Maurice Harold Thompson, Sir Luke
Dickie, John P. Maitland, Adam Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert Manningham-Butter, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Train, John
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Marsden, Commander Arthur Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Martin, Thomas B. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Dunglass, Lord Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Elmley, Viscount Meller, Sir Richard James Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Eseenhigh. Reginald Clare Milne, Charles Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles Mansell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Ganzonl, Sir John Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Whyte, Jardine Bell
Glossop, C. W. H. Moss, Captain H. J. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Gluckstein, Louis Halls Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Writs, Wilfrid D.
Goff, Sir Park Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Worthington, Dr. John V.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Young. Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Graham. Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) O'Connor, Terence James
Grigg, Sir Edward Oman, Sir Charles William C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grimston, R. V. Ormiston, Thomas Major George Davies and Commander Southby.
Gunston, Captain D. W. Orr Ewing, I. L.
Guy, J. C. Morrison Percy, Lord Eustace
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Milner, Major James
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)
Attlee, Clement Richard Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.) Owen, Major Goronwy
Banfieid, John William Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Parkinson, John Allen
Batey, Joseph Groves, Thomas E. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Grundy, Thomas W. Rea, Walter Russell
Cape, Thomas Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Roberts. Aled (Wrexham)
Curry, A. C. Holdsworth, Herbert Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Dagger, George Jenkins, Sir William Salter, Dr. Alfred
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth) Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnesa)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Davies, Stephen Owen Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n,S.)
Debbie, William Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Tinker, John Joseph
Edwards, Charles Lawson, John James Wayland, Sir William A.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Leonard, William West, F. R.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Lunn, William Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Mender, Geoffrey le M.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Mason, David M. (Edinburgh. E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. T. Williams and Mr. Paling.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 390.] AYES. [12.51 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Rickards, George William
Broadbent, Colonel John Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Runge, Norah Cecil
Carver, Major William H. Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Clarry, Reginald George Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Daggar, George Liddall, Walter S. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) Llewellin, Major John J. Stourton, Hon. John J.
Fox, Sir Gifford Loftus, Pierce C. Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A.(p'dd'gt'n,S.)
Fremantle, Sir Francis Logan, David Gilbert Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Glossop, C. W. H. Marsden, Commander Arthur Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) Moss, Captain H. J. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Hanley, Dennis A. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pike, Cecil F.
Harbord, Arthur Raikes, Henry V. A. M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Mr. Haslam and Mr. Gurney Braithwaite.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Paling, Wilfred
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Patrick, Colin M.
Blindell, James Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Petherick, M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Holdsworth, Herbert Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Boyce, H. Leslie Horobin, Ian M. Procter, Major Henry Adam
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Horsbrugh, Florence Ramsbotham, Herwald
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Butt. Sir Alfred Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Reid, David D. (County Down)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Conant, R. J. E. Jenkins, Sir William Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Ker, J. Campbell Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Critchley, Brig.-General A. C. Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Scone, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Soper, Richard
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil) Mabane, William Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C. McCorquodale, M. S. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Macdonald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Stones, James
Edwards, Charles McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Storey, Samuel
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. McKie, John Hamilton Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) Magnay, Thomas Sutcliffe, Harold
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Templeton, William P.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Martin, Thomas B. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (wallsend)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. White, Henry Graham
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Graves, Marjorie Morrison, William Shepherd Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Greene, William P. C. Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Wragg, Herbert
Grimston, R. V. O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Gunston, Captain D. W. Ormiston, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Guy, J. C. Morrison Orr Ewing, I. L. Sir George Pennyeand Sir Victor Warrender.