LOTTERIES AND GAMING BILL

HC Deb 23 March 1962 vol 656 cc753-76

Order for Second Reading read.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. John C. Bidgood (Bury and Radcliffe)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I should like to clear up one or two misunderstandings about the Title which has been jocularly attached to the Bill by the Press, some of whom have referred to it as the "Bingo Bill". I hope, during the course of my remarks, to explain the wider aspects of what the Bill seeks to do and to convince right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that bingo represents a very small part of the object of the Bill.

Secondly, I want to make it clear that I am wholly opposed to any extension of the present gambling laws. There is no extension in the Bill beyond the permitted bounds of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956 and the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960.

I am somewhat fortified in bringing the Bill forward by the fact that the Churches Council on Gambling has written to me to say that it does not oppose the Bill. I am authorised to quote a letter which I received from the Council the other day in these terms: This Council's Executive Committee has considered the Lotteries and Gaming Bill and has decided to make no effort to oppose it. This is simply because it appears to be a logical measure, following the judgment in the Huddersfield Club case. If the Bill becomes law it will enable people to do what it was generally thought they could legally do before under the existing Acts. The Huddersfield case and the judgment in connection with it was Payne v. Bradley and others in June of last year.

I shall have more to say later about this ruling in the House of Lords, but while I am on the question of the Churches Council on Gambling I wish to take this opportunity of commending to the House a report, which the Council has just published, on the working of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, written by the Rev. Gordon E. Moody. I should like to quote from page 7 of his report, in which, in connection with the 1956 Act, he referred to the discussions in another place during the Second Reading of that Act in these terms: Lord Douglas of Barloch noted that not only charitable societies but others whose objects might in fact be quite uncharitable and quite detrimental to the community would be in a position to hold lotteries. There was little or no discussion at any time in the Parliamentary debates into what constitutes private gain. There is no definition of it and the nature of the society that should benefit is too loosely defined. The primary purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to define what is meant by private gain and to reverse the ruling of the House of Lords in June of last year. The ruling concerned the Huddersfield Friendly and Trade Societies Club, which is a working men's club. The club had been in the habit of organising tombola, bingo and other games, and the profits were paid into the club general fund. They were used to finance various social activities of the members and to provide facilities for members.

It is well-known in the House that lotteries are illegal, with certain exceptions. One exception is covered by Section 4 of the 1956 Act, which provides that if proceeds, after paying expenses and the cost of prizes, are devoted to purposes other than purposes of private gain, the lottery is lawful.

The Huddersfield club acted in the belief—a very widely held belief—that this provision of the 1956 Act would permit the appropriation of the proceeds to the general purposes of the club. Lord Goddard, Lord Morton and Lord Guest, in their ruling—I quote from Lord Goddard at page 291 of the ruling—held that Section 4 of the 1956 Act did not allow the application of proceeds to the purposes of a club, and if the proceeds were paid into the general fund of the club it was held that the club, and that means the individuals forming the club, do obtain a private gain. This view was not held by Lord Denning and Lord Morris, who maintained that Parliament intended the words "purposes of private gain" to denote the direct benefit which accrues to an individual when money goes into his own pocket or money's worth gets into his hands, as distinct from the indirect benefit which accrues to him as a member of a society or club. As a result of the House of Lords decision the conditions laid down by Section 4 of the 1956 Act cannot be fulfilled, and I am sure that the House would like to see that position remedied. If a club organises a lottery for the benefit of club funds, that lottery is at present illegal under the ruling given by the House of Lords.

To reinforce this point—Section 4 of the 1956 Act implemented a recommendation contained in paragraph 419 of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, 1949–51, that whist drives organised for the support of local institutions should be made lawful. The conditions laid down in that Section are those recommended by the Commission. Briefly, they mean that the element of gaming must be small, and it seems reasonable that clubs should be permitted to organise games, lotteries etc. in support of their funds. It is the purpose of the Bill to enable them to do so.

I now turn to the provisions of the Bill. It is virtually a one-Clause Bill. Clause 1 (1, a) covers Section 23 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. This subsection exempts from the general prohibition lotteries promoted incidental to an entertainment, such as a bazaar, sale of work, fete, dinner, dance, or a sporting or athletic event. Paragraph (b) covers small gaming parties, including whist drives, bridge drives, bingo, and so on. At present, Section 4 of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, is inoperable as a result of the House of Lords decision.

Paragraph (c) covers several provisions of the 1960 Act, which intended to permit gaming machines in such places as golf clubs and social clubs for the support of club funds, and the giving of prizes at bazaars and sales of work, etc. One result of the Payne v. Bradley ruling has been to show that the 1960 Act did not achieve this purpose.

Subsection (2) is included merely because Section 1 of the 1956 Act is drafted rather differently, and drafting considerations make this subsection necessary. Subsections (1) and (2) are designed to enact that the proceeds of the various activities promoted on behalf of a society or club which are applied for any purpose calculated to benefit the society as a whole shall not be held to be applied for purposes of private gain by reason only that their application for that purpose results in benefit to any person as an individual.

In other words, if proceeds are applied to club funds in the case of a nonproprietary club there is no infringement of the present Acts. The Bill has no application to proprietary clubs, and it is not intended that any provisions should go beyond what is laid down. If that were not the case it might be possible for the proprietors of these proprietary clubs to gain from their activities.

Subsection (3, a) is designed specifically to avoid infringement by payment of the proceeds into an account separate from the proprietor's account. But for this subsection a proprietor could open a special account—which might be called a members account, controlled by the members—and pay certain of his profits into that account, thereby indirectly benefiting himself. This subsection makes that impossible. Proprietary clubs are, therefore, excluded from the operation of the Bill.

If the matter were left there, the Bill would not apply to sporting clubs, such as golf clubs, some of which are technically commercial undertakings. Consequently, subsection (3, b) extends subsection (1) to include societies concerned with athletic sports or games.

Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton)

I cannot follow my hon. Friend's argument entirely. As I understand it, he says that the Bill does not apply to proprietary clubs. I am not clear what he means by that. I have in mind something like the Calcutta Club Sweepstake, which used to raise large sums of money. Presumably that club benefited to a considerable extent from that sweepstake, and if such a club ultimately went out of existence I presume that the assets would not belong to the members. There might be considerable profit in that.

Mr. Bidgood

I do not want my hon. and gallant Friend to read more into the Bill than is intended. Its purpose is to reverse the House of Lords ruling in regard to Payne v. Bradley, to the extent that it affects the type of club which accounted for the ruling.

It would not be proper for me to try to define whether the Calcutta Club is a proprietary or non-proprietary club. The intention is that proprietary clubs shall be excluded from the provisions of the Bill unless they are of an athletic or sporting nature. In any case, Section 1 of the 1956 Act lays down that such undertakings must register with the local authority. This provision remains.

I hope that the House will feel that no extension of gambling will be possible under the provisions of the Bill. In view of the support which it has from religious organisations outside, I commend it to the House.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I apologise for intervening at this stage, but I do so because I regret that I shall have to leave before the debate is concluded or a vote is taken. My intervention will be very brief.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) on having made use of his good fortune in the Ballot by introducing this Bill, which, as he said, is designed to reverse and correct the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Payne v. Bradley. That decision, I might justly say, was very unexpected to all concerned. I have no doubt that it was correct in law so far as it interpreted the then existing statutes, but it produced a result which was contrary to what had been generally expected. That result can be changed only by an intervention on the part of the Legislature.

I very much hope that the Bill will be passed into law. As I understand the Measure, which the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to explain with such care and detail, it is intended merely to allow certain clubs and societies to use lotteries and gaming for raising funds in ways which Parliament and the public thought they would be able to do on the basis of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, and the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill is designed to benefit merely undertakings which do not exist for commercial profit. For that reason, it has been necesary for him, in drafting the Bill, to make special reference to those societies and clubs which engage in athletics, sports or games and which equally are entitled, we think, to hold lotteries as are clubs existing for social purposes and not for commercial profit.

In case any hon. Members have doubts about the matter, I should inform the House that I have received a letter about the Bill from the Churches Council on Gambling. The Council took a very keen interest, as you will recall, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the passage of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960. While it does not wish to encourage gaming, it has asked me to say that it does not oppose the Bill, because it makes the law read in the way that the Council and everyone else understood it to read.

At the same time, it is right to observe that, contrary to the expectation of the Government and of Parliament when the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, was passed, it appears to some of us that small, night gaming clubs, and bingo clubs have found a loophole in the Act and are making money commercially out of gaming in a way not contemplated when the Act was passed. I will not elaborate on that now. If we wish to tidy up and try to give effect to the intentions of Parliament, however, it is a matter which should be considered in the context of this Bill.

I support the Bill and commend its Second Reading to the House.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton)

Since the hon. Gentleman has been courteous enough to say that he will have to leave, may I explain that I propose to intervene in the debate later and I hope to be able to convince the House that the Bill will not lead to easier conditions for the running of commercial bingo clubs.

1.15 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington (Aldershot)

I remember reading, a considerable number of years ago, a paper called "The Confusion of Chance" to a society to which I belonged. The problem which always faces those who seek to legislate on these matters is the considerable confusion which still exists, although something has been done in a number of Acts to make that confusion less.

I support the Bill and wish to confirm that in no sense does it, or should it, increase the facilities for either gaming or lotteries. Having been lucky enough, in 1955, to introduce a Private Member's Bill on this subject and to have taken part in the discussions on the 1956 Act, I should like to say a word or two about those Measures.

Section 4 of the 1956 Act, dealing with small gaming parties, was not in the Bill as it was originally drafted. It was introduced during the Committee stage. Now, as a result of the operation of the 1960 Act, Section 4 has been very much cut about by repeals and other Amendments.

It is because it is so important that enactments on lotteries and gaming should be reasonably clear that I query the form in which the Bill is drafted, although I am satisfied that without doubt its objects are good.

I wish to refer to part of Lord Dunning's judgment in the Payne v. Bradley case. In referring to Section 4(1) of the 1956 Act, he said: Under that Section an entertainment can be held for raising money to be applied for purposes other than private gain. Previous to that, he had said: References to other Sections seem to me to show that the Legislature has throughout used the words 'purposes of private gain' quite consistently so as to denote the direct benefit which accrues to an individual when money goes into the pocket or money's worth gets into his hands as distinct from the indirect benefit which accrues to him as a member of a society or club by reason of the improvement of its accommodation or amenities which he shares with other members. I should like, first, to deal particularly with the amendment of Section 4 of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, concerning small gaming parties contained in Clause 1 (1), which states if the proceeds of any entertainment … on behalf of a society to which this subsection extends which are applied for any purpose calculated to benefit the society as a whole shall not be held to be applied for purposes of private gain by reason only that their application for that purpose results in benefit to any person as an individual. I submit that there is a serious danger of that being read as giving an individual an opportunity to have some benefit without destroying the whole position that arises because of the society being one which is run without private gain. In other words, it seems not impossible to have a position where a person can succeed in gaining profit without destroying the protection that is given to an organisation which is not concerned with private gain.

Probably the distinction ought to be drawn much clearer than it is between direct benefit to an individual and indirect benefit to individuals as an association. I would like, in consequence, to have seen, in amendment of Section 1 of the 1956 Act, words which more clearly define that distinction. I suggest that the point might be covered by amending the 1956 Act by adding such words as: A society otherwise included within the provisions of this Section shall not be excluded therefrom under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) (in so far as it relates to private gain) only because monies raised by any lottery might indirectly"— the essence is that the word "indirectly" should appear there— benefit the members of such society individually if the money so raised is applied bona fide to the general purposes of the society. The expressions "indirect" and "general purposes" of the society seem essential for the easy understanding of what the Bill is seeking to do. That should also apply in regard to amending Section (1) of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956.

Mr. Bidgood

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be happy to discuss these matters with him before the Committee stage.

Sir E. Errington

I am pleased to hear that and I hope that there will be an opportunity to do so. But I think that it is important to emphasise that one must not add to the confusion of the legislation on this subject, and that the Bill will require extremely careful drafting. Though I do not pretend to be a very skilled draftsman, I am not happy about the way in which Clause 1, particularly subsections (1) and (2), has been drafted really covers the position.

I think that this may well lead to a situation where there may be individual gain under the cloak of the society which is protected because it is essentially not for private gain. If consideration is given to these matters, and the Bill receives a Second Reading, as I am sure it will, consideration must also be given in detail to the other Sections of the 1934 and 1960 Acts referred to in Clause 1 (1). It is essential, in these matters, for careful consideration to be given to drafting to ensure that it is intelligible and clear beyond doubt, because one's experience in these matters is that they are a fruitful ground for legal actions as well as loopholes for evasion. I am sure that, if words could be found, this would be a most valuable Bill, but I am not happy with it as it stands at present.

1.25 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) on utilising his luck in the ballot to introduce a very sensible little Bill. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said there were doubts about the meaning of the words. On the face of it, I should have thought that they did carry out the object intended. I agree that this matter should be examined very carefully in Committee to see that there is no loophole to make the law even more doubtful than it is at present.

I gather that the intention is to put into effect what Parliament intended to mean by the words "private gain". Reference has been made to the case of Payne v. Bradley, which certainly illustrated that different meanings can be put upon these words. It is interesting to see how our judges differ with regard to this.

The Huddersfield justices—I do not know how many of them there were—and then three judges in the divisional court, including the Lord Chief Justice, held that they were unable to give the meaning to the words the appellants sought to give—that private gain only occurred when money went directly to the benefit or gain of an individual or individuals. They could not accept that contention. The judges were very strong in their judgment. The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said that, in every sense of the word, the money was being paid to the private gain of the society and of the individual members.

Fortunately, under our new procedure, we were able to get further opinions on that, because the divisional court certified that there was a point of law of general public importance and gave leave to appeal to the House of Lords. This was one of the first such cases under the new procedure. The Law Lords upheld the decision of the lower courts, two of them disenting. Reference has already been made to Lord Denning's judgment. I would, however, like to emphasise one or two things he said. They are most important in considering this matter.

Lord Denning pointed out that none of the profits went into the pockets of individual members of the club. They went to help the club to pay its way. It was a working men's club which was established according to these rules: To afford members the means of social intercourse, mutual happiness, mental and moral improvement and rational recreation. Those are all very worthy objectives.

In his judgment, a very careful and reasoned judgment, Lord Denning went through the various Sections where these words "purposes of private gain" were used, and he did it, I think, in order to try to show what was the meaning which the Legislature sought to attach to those words in a similar context. He argued that the references showed that the words "purposes of private gain" were used quite consistently—his words have have been quoted and I refer to them again—to denote the direct benefit which accrued to an individual when money went into his pocket or money's worth got into his hands, as distinct from the the indirect benefit he gained as a member of the club in the improvement of its accommodation or amenities.

Certainly that seems to me to be the common-sense view and the view which the Legislature intended when these Sections in the various Acts which have been referred to were enacted. If the words are to be read as meaning that when a club engages in tombola or bingo or a like entertainment in the circumstances as in the case of Payne v. Bradley that constitutes an illegal act, clearly that ought to be put right, and put right as soon as possible, and I am glad that the hon. Member has sought in this Bill to put it right, and I very gladly support it.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson (Manchester, Blackley)

I, too, should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) on his choosing this very valuable Measure for a Private Member's Bill today and on the way in which he has presented it to us.

As has already been said, all of us who were members of that Standing Committee which deliberated in 1960 the Betting and Gaming Bill for some considerable time did get the impression that what we were doing was to make it possible for a bona fide club like a working men's club, a British Legion club, and others, to run lotteries like tombola and to use gaming machines—as I understood it—in the club and to take the profit which they made for the benefit of the club as a whole. It came as a considerable surprise to us to find that the House of Lords, in that appeal which has been mentioned, took an opposite view.

I do not want to make many comments about the Bill itself, but there are one or two points which I should like to have cleared up either now or at a later stage, and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will be able to clear them up for me.

The first one concerns the position of non-members of a club taking part in a lottery. It seems to me that under Section 16 (7, c) of the 1960 Act for non-members lotteries are permissible provided nobody takes part who is not either a member or a bona fide guest of a member. So it would seem to me that a member could bring in any number of guests and that they could take part in bingo or other lotteries being held in the club. What I should like to know is: what is the position of the gaming machines in such circumstances? Because it is said in Section 17 of the 1960 Act that Section 16 does not apply to gaming machines.

It would seem, on the face of it, to a non-legal mind, that a member can bring in guests and participate in housey-housey and gaming of that kind, and that that would be perfectly all right, but if the guest were to use the gaming machines it would not be right.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), I have some doubts about the last line of Clause 1 (1). It was the practice at one time—no doubt it was illegal, but it was done—for these machines to be installed in clubs and elsewhere, and the owner of the machines took so much out of them and maintained them and the clubs took their share out of them as well. My hon. Friend's Bill, as I understand it, would make it perfectly proper for a club to take the proceeds of these gaming machines, and that would not be termed private gain.

What I am wondering about is the last line of Clause 1 (1), which says that the proceeds shall not be held to be applied for purposes of private gain by reason only that their application for that purpose results in benefit to any person as an individual. Could that possibly provide a loophole for someone to install a machine in a club and take a cut out of it, as he used to do illegally? I do not think that it was intended in the 1960 Act that they should do that. It may be quite a small point, but I think that it is one which might lead to complications if it is not cleared up either today or at a later stage of the Bill.

It was just those points on which I felt I should like to make a comment. I once more congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done. I feel sure the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, and I hope it will be on the Statute Book before very long.

1.36 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)

I shall intervene only briefly, first to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) for the Bill and for choosing to try to rectify this unfortunate decision in Payne v. Bradley. Of course, the House of Lords had to stick to the law, but it was unfortunate that that decision was arrived at and we all want to see the matter rectified.

After hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said, I am slightly worried about the wording of the Bill. When we passed the 1960 Act we thought that we were passing a Measure which could not give rise to a decision such as that in Payne v. Bradley. I am, therefore, slightly worried lest the terms of the Bill possibly give rise to similar difficulties. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to let us know whether the Home Office has given very serious consideration to any legal loophole which there could be under the Bill.

We are all right behind the Bill. We are all in favour of it, I am sure; but I hope that, if there are any slight difficulties because of the drafting, then in Committee my hon. and learned Friend will be able to correct them and help us in that matter, so as to make sure that, when the Bill is finally passed, as I am sure it will be, there are no errors in the drafting which could give rise to a further case such as Payne v. Bradley.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I, too, welcome the Bill and thank my horn. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) for his good work in bringing it forward, and congratulate him on his luck in the Ballot.

Several hon. Members have expressed surprise at the result of Payne v. Bradley, and I cannot help feeling that we may possibly have some surprises arising out of this little Bill.

The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) referred to the loopholes which we have seen following the 1960 Act. To my certain knowledge a number of hon. Members have observed various gaming clubs in London. Indeed, I believe Chat some hon. Members here are members there, but other hon. Members here have visited clubs Which have flourished as a result of the 1960 Act and have expressed very great doubts about the wisdom of allowing any substantial increase in gaming and gambling in this country.

There is grave disquiet among churchmen of all Churches about the great increase in gambling. The hon. Member for Islington, East very properly referred to a letter he received from the Churches Council on Gambling, or a Church body which said that it had no objection to make to the Bill. I have no objection to the Bill. As I say, I welcome it, but in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), I am worried about the potential loopholes. I have seen the loopholes which have arisen from the Bill introduced two years ago. Many people-not only Members of Parliament and, indeed, not only churchmen, but people in all sections of the Community—are very worried at some of the side effects of the 1960 Act.

My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East to give him an assurance that there would be no increase in commercial bingo arising from the Bill. That is excellent. I am glad that there can be no increase in commercial gambling under the Bill, but one cannot help wondering what will happen in cases such as briefly outlined in his interjection by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot).

There could be set up a large and substantial club for purposes which would be acceptable to the Bill, a sporting club or social club, a members' club—mot a proprietary club—and then that club might be wound up. I can see the "wide boys", if I may use such a phrase, all over the country taking advantage of that. There may be the Little Puddlecombe Tennis Club which may flourish for twenty-four hours and run a profitable lottery. Then it would be wound up and the proceeds, unfortunately not enough to make a hard court, would be distributed among the half-dozen members.

I see nothing in the Bill to stop that. We might have a flood of ephemeral sporting clubs. I do not know whether my hon. Friend who is promoting the Bill would agree to give me an assurance on this point. I see no protection of it.

Mr. Bidgood

I am happy to intervene to say that this Bill is not intended to give that protection. The protection is already afforded by the 1956 Act.

Mr. Wells

That may well be so, but surely if it is a club which is set up and operating perfectly legitimately under the 1956 Act and then fades out, there is no objection to the surplus fund being distributed among the members if that is the general practice.

Sir E. Errington

The 1956 Act applied to small lotteries. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) has mentioned large lotteries and the possibility of winding up a club and collecting large sums of money. The 1956 Act dealt solely with small lotteries and small gaming parties.

Mr. Wells

I am grateful to both my hon. Friends. I am well aware of the 1956 Act, but let us go back to the mythical Puddlecombe Tennis Club with half a dozen members.

The members hire the vicar's tennis court, but, in fact, never play tennis. They get a fund going in order to make themselves a tennis court—this is possible—and they run a series of small lotteries, the more the better, and the funds grow and become very substantial as a result of £10 or £20 lotteries. This is by no means beyond the imagination of the "wide boys". If a simple soul like myself can think it up in ten minutes, I am sure that the "wide boys" could think up far wider measures.

I am not trying to carp at the Bill. I make quite clear that I welcome its provisions wholeheartedly, but I express this genuine and very sincere doubt of many people that here may be yet another vehicle for cunning people to find loopholes in existing legislation on gambling.

I must go on, in my welcome to the Bill, to say how delighted I think all organisers of charitable and very well worthwhile causes will be at the introduction of the Bill. I am aware of the difficulties of the British Legion and of many church fetes, and so on, which have operated small lotteries. They will welcome these provisions. Therefore, I congratulate my hon. Friend.

I think that all people concerned with small local charitable organisations will be glad of the work he has done, but I hope that between now and Committee stage—I most sincerely hope that the Bill will reach the Statute Book-he will look at potential loopholes and have serious conversations with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.

1.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton)

I wish to join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) in his success in the Ballot and the good use he has made of it, and also on his lucid introduction of his Bill. It deals with a single and rather small point, but a point of considerable importance to many social and sporting clubs throughout the length and breadth of the country.

This phrase, "purposes other than private gain" first appeared in Section 23 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. It was repeated in Section 4 of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, and, as the use of the phrase had not given rise to any doubts or dfficulty during the previous twenty-six years, we used it again in the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960 where, as has been pointed out. it occurs in Sections 17, 20 and 23.

Section 23 of the 1934 Act authorises raffles and so on—raffles are one example of a lottery which otherwise would be illegal—at bazaars, sales of work, fetes and other entertainments of a similar character. Its purpose was to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting in 1933 that lotteries should be allowed at such functions to help to support the charity. It is a condition of such raffles that the proceeds should be devoted to, "purposes other than private gain".

I have looked up the debates on that Measure and so far as I can find it never occurred to anyone in Parliament in 1934 to inquire whether this phrase would cover the raising of money to help the general funds of a club. The opportunities given by section 23 of the 1934 Act have in practice been widely used since 1934 to hold raffles at fetes organised by clubs in aid of their general funds and the lawfulness of such action has never been challenged in the courts under that Act.

When Mr. Ernest Davies, whom many of us remember, introduced the 1956 Bill, he openly declared his intention that small lotteries, legalised by Section 1, and small gaming parties, legalised by Section 4 of the Act, should be used to raise money for the benefit of club funds. That expressly declared intention was accepted on both sides of the House. It was the intention that such funds should be covered by the phrase, "purposes other than private gain." During the debate on that Measure, Government spokesmen did not cast any doubt on the point whether the words achieved that intention.

As I say, we used the phrase in three separate contexts in the 1960 Act, and in doing so we never doubted for one minute what "purposes other than private gain" meant. We were quite clear in our minds that there was to be no element of commercial profit or any financial benefit of a direct kind to any individual.

My recollection of the debates on the 1960 Measure—I have not looked through them all again because, as one of the Ministers responsible for piloting the Bill, I hoped that they were still sufficiently fresh in my mind—is that we had no discussion of the meaning of that phrase and all assumed that there could be benefit to the general funds of a club or society.

However, we have now had the decision of the House of Lords in Payne v. Bradley that the phrase "purposes other than private gain" does not permit the raising of money by a club for its general funds by means of the activities covered by Section 4 of the 1956 Act, because that was the provision which their Lordships were interpreting in deciding the case of Payne v. Bradley. Although only that provision was dealt with in that case, the decision affects the meaning of the words wherever else they occur in this branch of the law.

As one of the Ministers responsible for piloting the 1960 Act, I must tell the House candidly that the decision of the House of Lords took us completely by surprise. As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) put it so mildly, it was an unexpected decision. The House will readily understand me when I say that we had all along assumed that this phrase, which had remained unchallenged for more than a quarter of a century, seemed pretty clear in its meaning.

It is not the first time that the final court of appeal in this country has found that in law words used by Parliament mean something different from what they were understood to mean by Parliament when it wrote them into a Statute. When that occurs, it means that Parliament must either reconcile itself to the words bearing an unexpected meaning or else find some other phrase which will carry out its original intention. That is the purpose of the Bill, as my hon. Friend has so clearly stated, and we feel that it is a sensible purpose and one which will enable the original intentions of Parliament to be fulfilled.

Misgivings have been expressed about two things, however. One is whether subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 really fulfil the intention which we all have in mind. The other has been about the growth of bingo and the possibility that the Bill might increase the opportunities for playing that game or for making a profit out of it. I will deal with each of those matters in turn.

First, with regard to the purely drafting point, I certainly do not wish the House to feel that anything that I say about the drafting is in any way final. This is clearly a matter that we should have to consider further in Committee, but I felt that it might be helpful if before the Committee stage hon. Members could have the Government's view on this rather difficult drafting point. I acknowledge that it is a difficult drafting point.

The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was, I think, a member of the Standing Committee which considered the 1960 Measure and will agree with me that many difficult drafting matters arose during our proceedings. I think that we all need to consider extremely carefully the drafting of anything in the law relating to gaming. It is a complex branch of the law which does not lend itself to easy definition in a way which with certainty covers the multifarious circumstances which can arise in practice.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I should be more helped if we had the advantage of the presence of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who always appears to be able to give most dogmatic views on all these points.

Mr. Renton

Perhaps we shall have the benefit of his advice on a later occasion. I always welcome it.

Mr. Ede

So do I.

Mr. Renton

What subsection (1) of Clause 1 does in relation to the various activities covered by it and what subsection (2), in slightly different drafting form, does in relation to the one activity covered by it is to enact that the proceeds of any one of those activities promoted on behalf of a society which are applied for any purpose calculated to benefit the society as a whole shall not be held to be applied for the purpose of private gain by reason only that their application for that purpose results in benefit to any person as an individual.

Therefore, in the case of a nonproprietary club—I think we should deal with that first—if the proceeds are applied to club funds and used for the benefit of the members, there is no infringement of the requirement that they must be devoted to "purposes other than private gain" notwithstanding that the individual members of a club receive indirect benefit. On the other hand, if the proceeds, or any part of them, are paid to an individual member or are used for the direct benefit of an individual member or group of members only instead of all the members, the Bill does not change the situation. There is then private gain, so that the condition of the relevant enactment is broken.

What it comes to is this. We are not abandoning the principle that "purposes other than private gain" means necessarily helping all the members, but we are trying to overcome the difficulty created by the judgment of the majority in the House of Lords, which said, in effect "When you help the funds generally, each of the members benefits individually. Therefore, there is private gain." We shall, no doubt, have to consider this further in Committee. I certainly undertake to keep in touch with my hon. Friend and to consult him and see whether by any means these words can be improved in their meaning. I must make it clear that the Bill has no general application to proprietary clubs. That brings me—

Sir E. Errington

Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise the importance of distinction and finding adequate words to distinguish between individual benefit and the benefit that is obtained by individuals in a general sense as members of a club? I submit that unless he gets that, there is bound to be constant trouble and constant difficulty. That distinction must be clearly made and clearly marked by words that are beyond any question.

Mr. Renton

I most certainly accept what my hon. Friend has said, and I had hoped that in my explanation I had drawn the very distinction which he has now expressed.

Sir E. Errington

My hon. and learned Friend absolutely drew the distinction, but my submission is that this distinction is not drawn in the Bill.

Mr. Renton

I take my hon. Friend's point, and I think it is important that the Bill should express that distinction. This is a technical matter, and, naturally, I shall take advice upon it. So long as we understand each other in that we are aiming at getting that distinction clearly expressed in law, it is a question whether the drafting does so or not.

Dr. Alan Glyn

Would my hon. and learned Friend deal with the point concerning machines owned by outside firms; in other words, the case where the machine is being maintained by somebody outside? Although the majority of the profits are going to a club or institution, there is a certain amount of money which will be paid to the firm owning the machine.

Mr. Renton

I would not like to give a snap answer to that point. It is a point I should like to consider.

May I now turn to the question of the growth of bingo. I said just now that the Bill has no application to proprietary clubs. Of course, it follows from that that the Bill does not affect the circumstances under which the so-called commercial bingo is played today. In considering this matter, we need to make a clear distinction, on the one hand, between the large-scale, so-called commercial bingo, played in proprietary clubs organised for this purpose and played under the powers given and the opportunity provided by Section 16 of the 1960 Act, and, on the other hand, bingo which is played at small gaming parties under Section 4 of the 1956 Act. This Bill has nothing at all to do with commercial bingo clubs, and, to that extent, there need be no fear that it will lead to an increase in bingo.

I make no comment on the merits of bingo as a form of entertainment, except to say that I have on rare occasions played it myself, and I frankly say that I found it a very dull game indeed.

Mr. Weitzman

Did the hon. and learned Gentleman win?

Mr. Renton

I cannot remember whether I did. I should think that my patience was exhausted before the end of the game. I think that is most probable, but I found it a very dull game. One takes note of the fact that a very large number of people seem to find it entertaining; I cannot think how. Whether they find it profitable is a matter for them to decide. It has the advantage that it gets people together in large numbers in respectable, orderly circumstances, and one has no complaint about that.

Mr. Weitzman

Sometimes they win.

Mr. Renton

It is, however, a game played in other circumstances as well, even more respectable and even more orderly, when it is played in small gaming parties under the 1956 Act, and, as I hope is now clear, the Bill will remove any doubt as to the legality of such games if the profits are to be used for the general funds of the society promoting it.

It is important in this connection to bear in mind the conditions under which such parties are held, because they include not only the condition that the proceeds must not be used for private gain, but there is also a requirement that only one payment, not exceeding 5s., may be made by each player in respect of all the games played on any one occasion. There is another requirement that the prizes distributed may not exceed £20 in value. It has generally been assumed by Parliament, and, speaking as a Home Office Minister, I take this view, that within these limits, bingo is not likely to be harmful, socially or to the individual.

I do not think that anyone could seriously say that bingo should be for-bidden altogether, and, certainly, the method of organising it at a small gaming party does less social harm than its commercial organisation, under which very much larger sums of money than 5s. as a stake and £20 as a reward can be lost or won. Therefore, although the Bill extends the opportunities for playing bingo on the strict conditions under which it is allowed under the 1956 Act, the extension of bingo which thereby takes place is essentially harmless.

May I now deal with one or two detailed points which I have not covered in the course of my remarks? My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), who, I know, has taken a great interest in this subject over the years, asked me about the effect of the Bill on Section 16 (7) of the 1960 Act, which, if I remember rightly, deals with the bringing of guests of club members to gaming taking place in a club within the provisions of Section 16. I must tell him that the point he has made does not arise in connection with this Bill, because the Bill does not deal with that Section at all.

My hon. Friend asked me a question about gaming machines under Section 17 of the 1960 Act. It is a requirement that the public shall not have access to premises on which gaming machines are installed, and my hon. Friend asked me if this requirement would be contravened if guests are introduced by the members of the club. I have to tell him that this is a matter for the courts in the circumstances of the particular case in which it might arise, but it would seem that the introduction of bona fide guests in a proper manner would not involve the admission of the public.

I was glad to learn that the Churches' Council on Gambling does not oppose the Bill. I think that is the attitude that would be expected from it, because, in spite of its well-known views about the menace of gambling and its understandable opinions on it, it is a fact that many thousands of pounds have found their way into the funds of the churches by means of legally-conducted small lotteries.

Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is being a little unfair to the constituent bodies of the Churches Council on Gambling. Very few members would approve of gambling by churches, either in Nonconformist or Anglican churches.

Mr. Renton

That may well be the view held by individual members of the Council. Such views do not necessarily correspond with the practices adopted by the Members of the churches throughout the country, and I think that one must be perfectly candid in saying that at many church and chapel fêtes and bazaars and the like opportunities are afforded for the somewhat innocent forms of lottery which are allowed by Statute.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) asked about the taking of a cut by the manufacturer from the takings of a gaming machine. I should like to consider this, and I shall get in touch with my hon. Friend.

I have spoken at some length. I have done so only in order to try to enlighten bon. Members on points which they raised and on which I felt that they would wish to have an answer from me. The Government regard this as a Bill to which the House could safely give a Second Reading. It will have the advantage of clarifying the law once more, we hope, and I do not think that any social danger can possibly arise from it.

2.11 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

The House is grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State for having given us the official view on the Bill. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), who attempted to complete that part of his education which was neglected at Eton, asked whether we could have words which would not be misconstrued. If we ever arrive at that state—

Mr. Weitzman

I should be out of a job.

Mr. Ede

—large numbers of people who are now drawing large incomes would become unemployed and unemployable.

It is a pity that this matter has arisen. Undoubtedly, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee which considered the Betting and Gaming Bill in 1960 tried to arrive at definitions in these matters which appeared to meet the needs of ordinary common-sense people. The problem caused by the decision of the House of Lords sitting as a judicial tribunal must give us ground for grave misgivings, for the commonsense view of the words which were put in the 1960 Act, which also are thrown into doubt by that decision, was reached after the most careful consideration.

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), both worthy exponents of commonsense views on these matters, I am not at all sure that I have much more certainty than has the hon. and learned Gentleman himself that we shall ever be able to arrive at a form of words which will not be misconstrued by somebody. I fear that we may be pursuing a chase which has no end. However, the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood), who introduced the Bill, is to be congratulated on selecting such a Measure and on the effort he is making.

I only hope that, after not too long a Committee stage—I see grave difficulties in even achieving that—we shall be able to put on to the Statute Book a Measure designed to say in language which only lawyers can misunderstand exactly what the House means and what, I am convinced, the ordinary people of this country wish to have said. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the assistance of the Minister of State in this matter and that we shall be able to do something which, for a few years at least, will enable people to enjoy bingo within the law and have their enjoyment without difficulties of the kind which have lately confronted them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).