HC Deb 13 November 1934 vol 293 cc1863-4

8.25 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 22, line 30, to leave out from "deducting," to "shall," in line 33, and to insert:

  1. "(i) the expenses of the entertainment, excluding expenses incurred in connection with the lottery; and
  2. (ii) the expenses incurred in printing tickets in the lottery; and
  3. (iii) such sum (if any) not exceeding ten pounds as the promoters of the lottery think fit to appropriate on account of- any expense incurred by them in purchasing prizes in the lottery."
This deals with lotteries conducted from the proceeds of entertainments. It was pointed out in Committee that prizes and raffles were not always presented but were paid for out of the proceeds of a bazaar. The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that many of these organisations were not wealthy people. I undertook at the time to look into the matter, and, having given careful consideration to it, I suggest the adoption of the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper. It in fact allows a sum not exceeding ten pounds as the promoters of the lottery think fit to appropriate on account of any expense incurred by them in purchasing prizes in the lottery. I hope that, having tried to meet the hon. Gentleman and various Members of the House, they will accept the Amendment.


We are very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his concession. We believe that it will make a difference in thousands of cases, and that he has gone far enough in meeting the objection.


As one who urged the Home Secretary to meet us our intention with regard to the Amendment, I beg to thank him very much for his kindness and consideration.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

8.27 p.m.


I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out "ten," and to insert "twenty-five."

The sum of £10, in many cases, would not be enough. A very common prize at a bazaar is a gold watch to be raffled for men and a gold bracelet for ladies, and £10 would not be enough to meet the expense of the prizes at any fair sized bazaar. I think that nobody would be able to say that £25 would be encouraging betting and gambling. Some of my friends suggested that the sum should be £50, and I said that that might be thought to be an encouragement of betting and gambling within the meaning of the new Bill, and therefore I suggested the sum of £25. I hope that the Home Secretary and the House will think that that sum is not unreasonable. There might be two or three raffles for which, prizes were offered, and £10 would leave a very narrow margin, whereas 225 is so small that nobody would be induced to go specially to the bazaar in order to get one of the prizes, yet it might help the promoters of a bazaar very materially to make the show a popular one.


I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

8.30 p.m.


I gave, as I told the House, very careful consideration to this problem, and I confess that at first I was inclined to put in a figure which was less than It is clear that there must be a very strict limit upon the amount. We came to the conclusion, after discussing the problem, that £10 was the most we could reasonably ask the House to accept. If there are undertakings which wish to have prizes of greater value, whether they are gold watches or motor cars, the prizes must be presented, as indeed many of these things are, and it is for that reason that it is impossible for me to accept the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.