NATIONAL SWEEPSTAKES BILL

HC Deb 17 March 1967 vol 743 cc919-40

Order for Second Reading read.

2.42 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

This debate was begun on 2nd December last. In the one minute before four o'clock on 2nd December, I was moving the Second Reading of this Bill and I was able to say a few words—actually, I counted 163 words—in commending the Bill to the House before I was beaten by the clock at 4 o'clock. If today I repeat any one of those 163 words which I managed to get in on that occasion I trust that the repetitions will be in order and that I shall not be tedious.

The purpose of the Bill—indeed, it is a purpose which is supported, as proved by a Gallup poll, by eight people out of 10 in the country—is to legalise national sweepstakes in order to provide funds for pioneering work in hospitals and also for medical and surgical research work in general. By research work I do not mean only the medical genius who is tucked away in the laboratory of a teaching hospital but I include the clinical experiments, the design of wards and theatres in hospitals, the new attitudes of and towards the nursing services, the streamlining of hospital administration and so on—all those new ideas which at present do not get the chance to be put into operation in hospital administration because of the lack of funds.

On research work in general the Government have been spending the totally inadequate sum of £11 million a year. Some months ago I trailed my coat with regard to the amount of money which might be raised by national sweepstakes. I said publicly that a National Sweepstake Act authorising national sweepstakes in this country could add some £30 million to £50 million per annum to the £11 million spent at the present time on research work. I was rebuked by the managing director of Ladbrokes. He ought to know. He said that I was pitching it too high. But, he said, if a national sweepstake "caught on", Britain's hospitals could hardly get less than £20 million a year. What could hospitals not do with £20 million a year on research work? Of course, it would catch on. There is no doubt about that. I will settle for £20 million for the hospitals, which would mean that the sweepstake itself would be raising funds of about £50 million a year. This is not at all an impossible figure.

The committee set up by the churches estimated that at the present time we put something like £1,000 million a year into non-charitable gambling. It may even be double that figure, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found that he is gaining a lot more from betting tax than he expected. So it is possible that the churches' figure of £1,000 million a year put into non-charitable gambling is an underestimate.

At least, we know that 17 million people hold premium bonds, and that is a very good example. Those 17 million people have invested £500 million in this gamble, and receive £2 million a month in what can only be described as lottery prizes from "Ernie". The well-known economist, Mr. Alex Rubner, set out a weekly scheme for national lotteries and he estimated—perhaps it is not correct to use the word "estimate" in connection with any economist—he definitely said that £200 million a year profit could be made out of national lotteries of the sort which he had in mind.

Countries all over the world have made a success of such lotteries. The French do it. The Italians do it and, as Noel Coward might have said in his song, The Spanish, Belgians, Irish and Australians do it. Even Manxmen in the Isle of Man do it They collect a very substantial sum from this country. This is what I stress. The money is collected from this country in the process. The Irish Sweepstakes, for example, which raise some £6 million a year, raise £4 million of that in this country. So we are subscribing substantial sums to subsidise overseas hospitals.

I have here a letter from the Hospitals' Trust (1940) Limited which is the undertaking which runs the Irish Sweepstakes. That organisation tells me that the hospitals in Eire have received from sweepstakes to date a total of £68 million. On the figures two-thirds of that money comes from this country. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that we are from this country subsidising hospitals in other countries.

The Daily Sketch said potently: Why should we give away these millions? In remarking that in France and the Isle of Man there are national sweepstakes such as I am proposing in this Bill, that newspaper says that money for charities like the Red Cross, the war disabled and hospitals is raised by those lotteries. The editorial in the Daily Sketch of 22nd February, 1966, said: People gladly pay 10s. or even £3 for a ticket which may bring them as much as the £180,000 top prize in lottery-loving Spain. Even if they don't win, the money has gone to a good cause. While our own hospitals are starved of the money for facilities for research,people in this country are subscribing large sums to lotteries overseas and depriving this country and our hospitals of the facilities which could be satisfactory and satisfying to the dynamic brains which medical training in this country produces.

The result of lack of funds of this sort for medical research is the brain drain. Down the drain goes much of our advanced knowledge and imaginative application in the field of medical services. We lose this great knowledge, this imagination in the application of medical knowledge, to other countries because we cannot provide the facilities for research here. It is true that the endowment funds of many of the teaching hospitals are used in an effort to provide facilities for research, but these endowment funds are dwindling because the teaching hospitals have had to spend the money on maintenance and replacement rather than the initiation of new schemes in research.

There are still the wealthy benefactors such as the Nuffield Trust, Wolfson, Rayne and others, who still provide magnificently for research work, but there are too few of such men, and, perhaps, the new rich such as the Beatles and the Rolling Stones have not yet realised what services their money can provide for the public in social welfare.

We shall find the money to save what I would describe as the crumbling edifice of research in hospital work only by giving the public en masse the opportunity to contribute to the great research projects which even now are in the pipeline.

We cannot expect the taxpayer as taxpayer to contribute a sufficient sum to this object. Research work, medical, sur- gical, hospital administration and so on, is sometimes a long-term job. It is sometimes a gamble, and one does not know whether it will prove successful or not. One should not, I suppose, have a flutter with the taxpayers' money, but as individuals everyone enjoys a flutter, especially if it is in a good cause. As the Daily Mirror said in its headline referring to this Bill, A harmless flutter, so why kill it? and the quotation across the heading on the page was: I'm blowed if I can see anything morally wrong in this plan", the words "this plan" referring to the Bill which I am now putting to the House.

It is not only the popular newspapers such as the Daily Mirror which are in favour, expressing popular desire for such a scheme. More serious organisations such as the National Union of Towns-women's Guilds take a similar view. The National Union passed a resolution at its annual meeting in favour of national sweepstakes in the form provided for in the Bill. The National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs passed a very strong resolution at its annual conference in November, 1966, in favour of national sweepstakes in this form.

Perhaps it will not delay the House unnecessarily if I quote that resolution in full: That in view of the present unsatisfactory state of the hospital services in the British Isles, necessitated by the restrictions of national finance, the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Great Britain and Northern Ireland urges Her Majesty's Government to give sympathetic and urgent consideration to the Private Members' Bill presented by Mr. Graham Page on Friday, 17th June, to be read a Second time on Friday, 2nd December, 1966 and to be printed, on condition that by so doing the Government does not reduce the grant which it now gives or the pro-rata increase necessitated in the grant by reason of rising costs. At about the same time, there was a similar resolution passed by the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends.

A special committee of the British Medical Association strongly supported the proposal for national sweepstakes. That was that committee which produced what is known as the Richmond Charter on the defects of the hospital system and which contained recommendations for improvements. In reporting it, the Daily Mail gave the banner headline, Doctors want hospital sweep". The whole trend of what is called the Richmond Charter was in support of the raising of funds for hospitals in that way. In the same spirit, the Daily Express called the Bill A worthy piece of legislation and it referred to the raising of millions of £s for medical research and pioneering hospital work by our own national sweepstake on the big Classic horse races". In that editorial, the Daily Express said: What a splendid idea … Parliament and the public should support this enterprising Bill. I take up that reference to the big Classic races by explaining that aspect of the matter straight away. The provision is that the sweepstakes proposed should be held on our well-known horse races in this country. If one is to have a lottery of this kind, it should be on something exciting. "Ernie" of the Premium Bonds is all very well, but that is merely a lottery, the drawing of numbers out of a drum or whatever it may be. But when people have a flutter on a horse race, they really enjoy it. Therefore, I would base any system of national sweepstakes on one or other of our famous races.

If sweepstakes are to be held in connection with horse races, it will be necessary to ensure that the races themselves, the courses on which they are run, the breeding and the performance of the horses, the amenities for the public on the racecourse, the skill of the jockeys and the trainers—that all these should receive some financial support from the proceeds of the sweepstakes.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Is the hon. Gentleman advocating more nationalisation?

Mr. Page

No. I shall come to that in a moment, and explain the scheme by which I propose that a national sweepstake should be run.

To finish the point I am on about basing the sweepstake on our famous horse races in this country, I would say, in addition, that it is right that the neighbourhood in which the racecourses chosen are situate should benefit by the provision of more and better recreational facilities.

The Bill seeks to make national sweepstakes lawful if they are upon horse races specified by the Home Secretary. An obvious choice for one of those races—if only from the Bill's title—would be the Grand National, whether it be run at Aintree or elsewhere. As I represent a constituency adjoining Aintree I hope, of course, that it will be maintained there as it has been for many years. That is one race about which the public get excited and interested, and on which they will be prepared to contribute to a national sweepstake. There are others spread over the year—the Derby, the Lincolnshire and the Cambridgeshire.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

The hon. Gentleman has already staked out a claim for the Grand National. He has also mentioned the desirability of spreading the sweepstake out over the year to races that are to be selected. But the Grand National and the Derby are rather too close together for the success of a national sweepstake.

Mr. Page

That may be so, but there are still the Lincolnshire, which is held in May, and the Cambridgeshire, held in October. With those and the Grand National one would get a spread, which is particularly important to the way in which the sweepstakes would be conducted. Those running it would wish to spread their efforts and organisation over the whole year, rather than concentrate on one or two months.

The Bill proposes that the national sweepstakes be conducted by a National Sweepstake Promoter, appointed by a National Sweepstake Authority. That Authority would be appointed by the Government in rather the same way as the Independent Television Authority is appointed. The National Sweepstake Promoter would bid for the right to operate them for a period, that right being put out to tender. I have suggested in the Bill a period of five years so that his organisation could run for a definite period on payment to the National Sweepstake Authority.

The proceeds of the sweepstake would be divided between research work and pioneering work in hospitals, public recreational facilities in the neighbourhood of the racecourse chosen for the race on which the sweepstakes would be held, and the prizes and the expenses of organising it. I have set out very definite percentages in the Bill for those four purposes. I am not wedded to them, but I am advised that they are the sort of figures which will attract people to buy tickets in the sweepstake.

The figures are: 37½ per cent. to medical research and pioneering hospital work; 2½ per cent. to public recreational facilities in the area around the racecourse; 37½ per cent. in prizes; and 22½ per cent. to the promoter for running the scheme—on the condition that he does not make a profit of more than 5 per cent. from it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Will the National Sweepstake Promoter be paid a big salary to attract the best brains? Will he be paid £20,000 a year, or something like the National Steel Corporation figure?

Mr. Page

That would be up to him. He will bid a certain figure for the right to receive 22½ per cent. of the sweepstakes' proceeds. If he found it necessary to employ master brains at £20,000 a year to run it, that would perhaps be his loss. I should not have thought that that would be necessary.

I have, of course, pretty thoroughly investigated whether existing organisations would be prepared to tender. I am assured that both the pools promoters and the large bookmakers, both of which have organisations sufficient to run that sort of operation would be only too happy to tender for the sort of figures I have mentioned.

The amount that the promoter would pay for the right to run the scheme, in return for the 22½ per cent. which he would receive from it, would be devoted to the improvement of the national racecourse and the improvement of the accommodation, for the public there and to improve the standard of horse racing on that course.

I admit readily that this is a form of private enterprise, not nationalising sweepstakes although running a national sweepstake. The advantage of my method, however, is that the conduct and administration of the sweepstake would be at no cost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be financed directly and entirely from the money raised. It would be no trouble to the Civil Service or any persons employed by this local authority. It would be run entirely by the organisation which succeeded in the bid to run it.

The scheme is so simple and yet so effective. I know that there are many undertakings which would tender for appointment as promoters of a scheme of this sort—undertakings which are perfectly capable of running it efficiently.

National sweepstakes conducted in this way would, I am convinced, be a winner. They would be a winner for the hospitals and for the research which is so desperately needed in our hospitals. I warn any right hon. or hon. Member who feels that perhaps for moral or other reasons he should vote against the Bill that the Gallup polls have shown that eight out of 10 people support a national sweepstake of this sort.

I received a letter from a gentleman who signs himself not by name but just as "Socialist". He said: Good luck to you in your attempt to introduce a national lottery to help medical research. I have never voted Conservative in my life, and probably never shall, but if I lived in Crosby I would even vote for you on this issue. I hope that the whole House will join my correspondent and vote for the Bill.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

It is very rarely that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). This is one of those very rare occasions. The hon. Member has made a reasonable case in favour of his Bill for a national sweepstake. It would go a long way towards regularising the present position.

Legally, I suppose, it is still wrong for anyone to receive a book of sweepstake tickets for the Irish hospitals sweepstake and for tickets for that sweepstake to be sold in this country. Yet we all know that the Irish hospitals sweepstake derives a considerable income from the sale of tickets in this country. There is a big postal traffic between Dublin and various parts of Britain. I would go so far as to say that what is good for Dublin and the Irish Republic is, in this respect, good for the United Kingdom as well.

A very fair allocation is proposed by the Bill for the proceeds of the national sweepstake, although I am not too happy about the 22½ per cent. that would go to the promoter for expenses. It seems rather high and I hope that, if the Bill makes further progress, the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to listen to representations with the object of reducing the profit or expenses incurred from the rather high level of 22½ per cent.

It is intended by the hon. Gentleman that there should be two national sweepstakes a year. For purely administrative reasons, it would be necessary to ensure that, so far as possible, they were held at intervals of six months. But that means that, if the Grand National were to be one of the races involved, the Derby and summer meetings would be "out" for national sweepstake purposes. Possibly the Cambridgeshire or some other race towards the end of the year would be the source of the second national sweepstake.

There would be bound to be some jealously between the different race courses, especially if the proceeds of the sweepstake income were devoted only to the two racecourses in respect of which the sweepstakes had been held during the year. It would be unfair and unreasonable to limit the contributions derived from the sweepstake fund to one or two courses. The conditions at many of our courses are so deplorable that very few are not in need of some improvement for the comfort of those who want to go racing.

However, these are matters which could be satisfactorily dealt with in Committee. I am sure that an overwhelming body of public opinion would be in favour of national sweepstakes as suggested in the Bill. We have to get this kind of activity organised on a rational and businesslike basis and not have all these hole-and-corner methods of raising money to which resort has to be made in the present state of the law.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman's attempt to get an element of rationality into these confused operations will be successful and will receive the blessing of the Government—the best Government we have had for many years and who have introduced many desirable reforms too numerous to mention now. I hope that, to all these good things that the Government have done during the last two and a half years, there will be added this further reform, as a result of which there will be a Labour Government in the country for generations to come.

3.14 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

I am not a gambling man, but I would willingly take a bet, particularly after the Honiton by-election, with the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) about what he has just said. He would be unwise to take it up. But I agree with his earlier remarks. I am sure that a national sweepstake for the purpose set out in the Bill would be a winner. Several of my constituents have written or spoken asking me to support my hon. Friend in his enterprise. Gambling is a national pastime and it would be useful and constructive for once to turn it into something which would serve a socially useful purpose.

We all know that the National Health Service—the hospitals, in particular—is going through a period of difficulty which is causing concern to our constituents and to those devoted men and women—lay and professional—who work in the service. In almost every case the difficulties stem from a lack of adequate resources. We know that to reduce the work load on hospital doctors many casualty departments are now working only part-time. We know that waiting lists for less urgent treatment are growing longer rather than shorter. We know that doctors and skilled health workers are emigrating because of what they consider to be unsatisfactory conditions—although I hope that this trend can be reversed. We know too that scales of remuneration are a source of constant contention, and that there are acute shortages of staff in certain categories precisely because adequate remuneration cannot be offered.

From time to time Questions have been asked in the House about kidney machines—the wonderful new technique for dealing with a particularly distressing form of illness. The former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is present, and he will know that it is not lack of machines but lack of trained staff to operate them that is holding up this essential service. As the Central Consultants and Specialists Committee said in a recent Memorandum on the Realities of Hospital Finance: The gap between demands and resources has reached a critical point. Unhappily, under present arrangements—which have obtained under all Governments since the inception of the National Health Service in 1947—the limiting factor is what the Minister of Health of the day can manage to wring out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is faced with a wide range of competing demands. Short of an increase in taxation specifically to finance the development of the National Health Service, or of the introduction of a wide range of charges—which would not be acceptable to the Government—or of a positive encouragement to private medical schemes—which, again, I doubt whether the present Government would favour—there is only one way in which additional resources can be found, namely, some device which persuades people to devote money that they would otherwise spend on something else to a specific hospital purpose.

The Bill provides an ingenious device for this purpose. My hon. Friend has said that under it about £20 million a year could be made available for medical research work and pioneering hospital work. I may not be completely up to date in my figures, but the Parliamentary Secretary will probably bear me out when I say that if that amount of money were made available to the National Health Service for research purposes it could release from the existing allocation resources sufficient to build three or four major district general hospitals a year. That would be a considerable contribution. But all of us who are concerned about the National Health Service can think of other urgent priorities to which this additional money could be devoted.

A proposal of this kind could excite the imagination of the public. It might attract a great many people who like a little flutter now and then and a great many more who do not indulge in any form of gambling. It should excite a very large number of people to take part in a national lottery. I understand that the British Museum was financed as a result of a national lottery.

Mr. Graham Page

And Westminster Bridge.

Mr. Braine

Certainly, those were two most worthy objects. I therefore commend the Bill to the House and hope that it will receive a Second Reading.

3.22 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw (Ilford, South)

ft is a sad commentary on the situation when we have to bring forward a Bill of this kind in order to see that our hospital services and our medical research are fully financed.

Having said that, I would add that the idea of a national lottery is not a particularly bad idea, and I agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that there is a tremendous demand for this sort of thing. Quite a number of people have written to me about this—not all excited about the idea, because they do not think that a Government will ever take this tremendous step in this country. There is some hypocrisy surrounding the idea of a national lottery which it is difficult to overcome.

It is with a feeling of sadness that I observe that we have to have this sort of Measure. It takes me back many years to the time when, as a boy, I saw processions going by with people throwing pennies into the street, which were being picked up by people collecting on behalf of the local hospital. We were told that beds were closed in the local hospital because finance was not available.

Whether the money raised by a national lottery would be for medical purposes or not, let us go back to the idea itself, which I certainly commend to the House. There is a demand which should be met, and which is being met in a much smaller way up and down the country. It is popular. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Crosby that it is necessary to make it exciting. The vast majority of the people will bet on almost anything, even two flies going up the wall. As long as there is a reason for it they are prepared to accept the challenge. It is irrelevant to argue whether it is necessary to choose a race or merely to take numbers out of a hat.

Undoubtedly, a good deal has been accomplished in this country with the revenue brought in by lotteries of this kind. A community centre is now being built of which I am particularly proud, being the president of the association which is running this venture. It is being helped by the Government and the local authority, but a great effort is being made by the members of this association, to a large extent by revenue brought in by a lottery of this sort, although in a much smaller day. As a result they are able to bring about something which otherwise they could not possibly have brought to fruition.

I was not thinking of the British Museum, or Westminster Bridge, but the idea is there. This is desirable and is being done and there is no reason for us to frown upon it. Not necessarily this kind of six-monthly lottery, but the continental type, with draws every week attracting tremendous revenue, might give employment to elderly or disabled people. The Bill could undoubtedly be improved in Committee, but I support it, although in a very sad state of mind.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), which has stimulated the whole House, with the sole exception of the Treasury Bench. Its occupants showed no nicker of excitement, which is disappointing. I hope that they will not treat this helpful suggestion as they have treated all others. When my right hon. Friend Mr. Harold Macmillan introduced Premium Savings Bonds, the Prime Minister, then in opposition, denounced them as a squalid raffle, and I fear that the "pussy-footing" Government Front Bench will turn this proposal down in the same frame of mind.

I hope that they will not, because not only will it save currency leaving this country—we know that many people invest in the Irish sweepstake or the Malta sweepstake—but the promoter of this scheme could go to those countries and try to get their money coming to us. Efficient promotion will be essential. It should not be a dull scheme run through the Post Office, but needs some really imaginative selling.

My hon. Friend has cleverly included this idea of private enterprise so as to ensure that the project is sold. This will stimulate investment. People are not excited by "Ernie" drawing numbers out of a drum. They like the excitement of a horse race, or even that of flies crawling up a wall. With an exciting and stimulating sweepstake, a great deal of money could be acquired for a worthy cause.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

This is an important Bill and it comes before us at an appropriate time, because this week we have been spending enormous amounts of money on the Army, Navy and Air Force. The Estimates for the three Services involved national expenditure of about £2,000 million.

If we are to buy Polaris submarines at £50 million a time, pay £100,000 each for 150 tanks and a pair of aircraft carriers for £30 million, it is only right that hon. Members should face the possibility of our going bankrupt and suggest ways in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might raise more capital. My right hon. Friend is always looking for new ideas and I am sure that he will say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, "The smallest contribtions will be thankfully received."

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken of the necessity of providing methods of gambling that are exciting. Are they aware that they can read the Financial Times and find something on which to gamble, although it is a reflection on the Stock Exchange that not sufficient opportunities are provided for people to do exciting gambling with company shares?

The old fashioned anti-gambling point of view has not been expressed today. I have been wondering why the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black), who usually speaks against gambling and in favour of Sunday observance, is not in his place. I am sure that if he knew that in the closing minutes on a Friday afternoon his hon. Friends were attempting to give a big impetus to gambling, he would be denouncing them as enemies of society.

But that is the old-fashioned view of gambling. These days, large numbers of people gamble on the football pools every weekend and we would be ignoring the facts of life if we did not accept that more gambling is done in Britain now than ever before. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite aware that great drama and excitment takes place every weekend as people fill in and check their football coupons? I cannot understand why the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) thinks that he is introducing something ingenious and original.

Mr. Graham Page

What I hope is original and ingenious about the Bill is that the money would go to medical research, which is not the case with money derived from the pools.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I will come to the medical research aspect later.

The hon. Member for Crosby thinks that he is introducing something that will catch on straight away. Is he aware that there are vested interests in gambling and that some Members who are interested in the more orthodox methods of gambling would, if they knew that they had a potential rival, be here to ask some awkward questions.

I do not deny that a great deal of gambling is going on. As the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) pointed out, people will even gamble on two flies walking up a wall. I have heard that on Sundays in a certain parish in Scotland—and I do not know whether or not Scotland comes under the Bill—betting takes place on the numbers of the hymns to be announced. I do not know whether that is true, but I do know that the promoter's idea that he has got hold of something new and original does not bear examination.

We already have the Premium Savings Bonds. I know that there is a great deal of excitement in many homes in London and elsewhere when the numbers are being drawn. Many people who have a £1 bond live in the hope and expectation of their names being drawn for a considerable sum. When the pools pay dividends of £100,000 or £200,000, the news is headlined on the front pages of every newspaper. There is already an enormous amount of excitement.

It is all speculation, of course, but I doubt whether as much money will be raised as the hon. Member has predicted. I do not hold the point of view of the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I know, for example, that since the passing of the small lotteries legislation, various political parties have raised considerable sums in this way—the Labour Party does so—and I know that these lotteries are successful. A national lottery would have to compete with all the other kinds of gambling activity already going on.

I do not know whether or not the Bill would affect Scotland. The hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the races at Ayr or Musselburgh, or any other races that are run in Scotland. I would like some enlightenment on how far the Bill applies, say, to Ayr races—

Mr. Graham Page

The Bill certainly applies to Scotland, and if, in Committee, the hon. Member were to set down an Amendment, we would be very pleased to include Ayr races.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

If I were on the Committee—it would be one of the few on which I am allowed to serve—I would be quite prepared to play a constructive part. If the hon. Member thinks that an enormous amount of money would come from a national lottery on the Ayr races in addition to all the money already being raised by sweepstakes on that event, he is mistaken. Any organisation needing money already organises a sweepstake on Ayr races. The hon. Member is certainly not entering un-chartered waters here. However, I would be quite prepared to give his Bill a trial if I were satisfied about a number of things in it.

A national sweepstake promoter would be appointed by a National Sweepstake Authority. Ought we not to have some more details of that appointment? Would a Minister be in charge? If so, which Minister is to be responsible? Is it to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I should have thought he had enough on already. Is it to be the Treasury? Is it to be the Postmaster-General?

The hon. Gentleman speaks of a very big growth in national activity. I do not see how hon. Members opposite who have complained bitterly about the large number of civil servants employed by Government Departments, and have put down Question after Question about the increase in the number of civil servants under the present Government, can reconcile this Bill with opposition to that growth. There is to be a National Sweepstake Authority and, presumably, the Minister would have to look around the City to find suitable people to serve on it. He would have much the same job as the Minister of Power has had. He would find the argument put forward, "We want the right man for the job and we must pay him a good salary." On the new National Steel Corporation members are to have substantial salaries ranging from £16,000 to £20,00 a year.

If this Authority is to be set up it will have a large number of highly-paid officials at the top. When they are appointed, who will complain? It will hon. Members opposite, because the Government will have appointed more civil servants. The only Minister I can think as likely to qualify for the State promoter of the Authority is the Paymaster-General.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Charles Loughlin)

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Perhaps the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) will correct me if I am wrong. Clause 4 of the Bill says: The National Sweepstake Authority shall be charged with the following duties, namely— (a) to offer by public tender the exclusive right to promote and to conduct all national sweepstakes for a period of five years; My interpretation of those words is that it will not be a Minister who will run the sweepstake, because 22½ per cent. of the total receipts are to go to the promoter. The Bill proposes that we should farm out the national sweepstake to private enterprise for profit. It would have nothing to do with a Minister.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I presume that before the Authority was set up a Minister would have to be appointed to answer for it.

Mr. Loughlin

No.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

My hon. Friend does not understand.

Mr. Graham Page

May I explain to the Government Front Bench? The Home Secretary will appoint the National Sweepstake Authority and will put it out to tender. Once it is put out to tender, and a promoter is appointed, he will run the scheme.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

This is the first time that the Home Secretary has been mentioned.

Mr. Graham Page

It is in the Bill.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

It may be in the Bill, but it was not in the explanation.

Earlier, I saw the Solicitor-General on the Front Bench and I thought that perhaps he would run it. This is a rather strange duty to put on to the shoulders of the Home Secretary at a time when he is expressing alarm about the increase of gambling. The Home Secretary has an enormous amount to do at present. He has to look after all sorts of things, including the gaols of the country. Now we are to add to his troubles a national sweepstake authority for which he will have to answer in the House.

I imagine that many Questions will be addressed to the Home Secretary if he starts up in business as the Minister responsible for the national sweepstake. I foresee difficulties which the hon. Gentleman rather glossed over.

The Home Secretary is to look after it in England. Who is to look after it in Scotland?

Mr. Graham Page

The Bill says, "the Secretary of State". That means the Home Secretary in England and in Scotland the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not welcome this further addition to his responsibilities. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has not thought about Scotland. He has not even thought about Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland has all sorts of multifarious duties imposed on his head—agriculture, health, education and prisons. It will be necessary to appoint another Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. What will then happen? Questions will be addressed to the Secretary for Scotland about the results of sweepstakes.

The hon. Gentleman has rather tended to minimise the practical difficulties and has offered this tempting bait to the people that there will be jam for nothing and that this will help to solve the problems of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think that it will. The Chancellor would do far better by putting a tax on gambling on the Stock Exchange. That is the great casino of the country. That is the great national sweepstake. If the Chancellor, in his Budget on 11th April, were to impose a tax on gambling on the Stock Exchange, the promoters of the Bill would be the first to oppose it.

The sweepstake is to be fanned out to contract. This was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. It is to be fanned out to private enterprise in the same way as national television. So there are to be further highly-paid officials. They all have to be paid out of the sweepstake money before the person who puts money on a horse gets any return.

I am surprised to find that 22½ per cent. is to go to the national sweepstake promoter. How has the hon. Gentleman arrived at that figure? If the national sweepstake promoter is to get not only a salary but 22½ per cent. of the investment, he will receive an enormous income. I waited in vain for the hon. Member for Crosby to give an estimate of what would go into the pockets of the gentleman who is to get the 22½ per cent. In this, I shall carry the punters with me. They will agree with me that too much money goes to those who promote sweepstakes.

Mr. Graham Page

If the hon. Gentleman reads Clause 2 (1,c,iii), he will see that out of that 22½ per cent. the promoter is limited to a profit of 5 per cent.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Even 5 per cent. out of the 22½ per cent., might be a considerable sum. I doubt whether we are entitled to approve of the Bill until we have a more detailed explanation of the 22½ per cent.

I believe that we shall set up a huge bureaucracy run by the Home Secretary. The gambling propensities of the country should not be dealt with by the Home Secretary. Premium Bonds are not run by the Home Secretary; they are dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that if this sweepstake scheme is to be set up at all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should run it in a separate department in the Premium Bonds business. The Premium Bonds people are experts in this sort of gambling. Therefore, this scheme should not be under the Home Secretary or under the auspices of the unfortunate Secretary of State for Scotland, but under the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In the final analysis the Chancellor of the Exchequer will get far more money from the people who gamble in Imperial Chemical Industries' shares, or in any of the large concerns in this country, a list of which can be seen in today's Financial Times. He will get far more money to finance the affairs of this nation by taxation on the really lucrative organised gambling interests in this country. I would not be surprised if the hon. Member for Crosby were to receive a protest from the Stock Exchange because he proposes to set up a rival organisation offering bigger prizes. The opponents of the Bill are numerous and are likely to be influential.

What is the bait held out? It is the hospitals. No mention is made of other causes. I wonder what we would have said if there had been a national sweepstake for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace. I wonder whether we could rely upon national sweepstakes for paying for the Polaris submarine or for the salaries of the War Office and the Admiralty. But it is the hospitals which are chosen for this doubtful proposal. The hospitals are mentioned because the promoters of the Bill think that they will command a certain amount of public sympathy. I do not think the hospitals or medical research should be dependent on sweepstakes. They should depend upon the general taxation and not upon which horse wins the Derby or which does not win the Grand National.

I object to the medical services being singled out in this way. I would rather pay for them and leave the other things to the sweepstakes. The hospitals should be financed out of the funds of the nation and not out of the profits which are left to the nation after the national sweepstake promoter has finished. The implications of the Bill are important and should be very carefully considered before being accepted.

I want to leave some time for the Home Secretary who, I believe has stated that he does not want the Bill. I am not the Home Secretary, but if I were I would object very strongly to having such a national sweepstake on my shoulders. I would say that it belongs to some other Ministry. I would say, "What about the Paymaster-General?" The Paymaster-General is an authority on sweepstakes. If the hon. Gentleman wants a really capable and well-informed Minister who knows all about horse racing in this country, he should drop the idea of giving the job to the Home Secretary and appoint the Paymaster-General.

The Paymaster-General knows about these things, he has been on the Racecourse Betting Control Board, he is the ideal man. But what a storm there would be in the House if it were announced that the Paymaster-General was to be given a new Cabinet job at £20,000 or £10,000 a year for controlling the National Sweepstake Authority.

I do not know what the Home Secretary has done to annoy the hon. Gentleman. I have a grievance against my hon. Friend because he did not this afternoon support my Bill to abolish titles, but I cannot understand what he has done to deserve having this big, doubtful, illegitimate baby put in his lap. It would be very unfair to the Home Secretary if it were thought that he was enthusiastic about accepting this new responsibility, so I shall now sit down and leave him time to tell us whether he wants the job or not.

3.56 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot)

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) by rising in the stead of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It has been a matter of hurried consultation between us as to which is the most suitable Department to address the House on the Bill because it is one which covers a wide range.

In my view, the Bill is somewhat inaptly named the National Sweepstakes Bill. In so far as it purports to set up a scheme for a national sweepstake, I think that it is in the first instance primarily a matter of interest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There have been several proposals from time to time urging that the Government should set up a national sweepstake. It is not a new proposal. It was considered in detail by the Royal Commission of 1949–51, which then advised against it on the ground that large sections of the public would find it objectionable in principle.

We know that some people have found objectionable the very much narrower Premium Savings Bond scheme introduced by a Conservative Administration, but that scheme is in no sense to be compared with a sweepstake or ordinary lottery. Under the Premium Bond scheme, unlike any form of gambling that I have ever heard of, one cannot lose. One cannot lose one's stake and one is always entitled to withdraw it. The only element of lottery in it is in the distribution of the moneys which would be available by way of interest on the loan to the State, which is what the Premium Bonds are.

The scheme proposed in the Bill put to us by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), however, is not truly a national scheme at all. It is proposed that a rather peculiar body called a National Sweepstake Authority should be set up, which sounds very impressive, and that that body would have a very mixed bag of duties. It would be entitled to grant an exclusive monopoly right to the highest bidder when the matter was put out to public tender. Whether that is a satisfactory way of organising what is described as a national sweepstake many people would doubt.

If it were thought right that the State should lend its assistance and resources towards setting up a sweepstake of this kind, most people would feel that it was not a matter which should be put out to tender to private bodies and individuals but was something which, if to be done at all, ought to be by the Government themselves.

Quite apart from any objections there might be from people who dislike gambling, there are other important—

Mr. GRAHAM PAGE rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. MacDermot

There are great objections on other grounds, on fiscal grounds, for instance, to trying to raise moneys by a sweepstake and then hypo thecating them for a particular purpose. Such a scheme both pre-empts fiscal resources in a way which, I think, would endanger the revenue, and would pre-empt—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 7th April.