HC Deb 26 February 1975 vol 887 cc543-73

Order for Second Reading read.

5.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)

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

It is less than a month since the House had some discussion about the—

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham and Heston)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some hon. Members would like to hear what my hon. Friend has to say in the debate. Is it possible to ask hon. Members to be quiet as they leave the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

Order. I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I think that we should all like to hear the Under-Secretary of State.

Dr. Summerskill

It is less than a month since the House had some discussion about the Government's proposals for legislation on lotteries—although that was on the occasion of the Second Reading debate on the Private Member's Bill of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I hope that this recent debate has not taken away hon. Members' enthusiasm for this discussion and that the House will bear with me while I explain the history of the Bill.

The existing law on lotteries is contained in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which consolidated earlier legislation on this subject. The fundamental principle of the law is that all lotteries are unlawful, subject to certain well-defined exceptions. The exceptions are three: small lotteries held as an incident of an entertainment—this covers the raffle at a church fête or cricket club dinner; private lotteries where the sale of tickets is restricted to people working or living in the same place, or to members of a society or club; and small public lotteries, which concern the House today, promoted on behalf of a society conducted wholly or mainly for charitable, sporting, cultural or other disinterested purposes. This kind of lottery is strictly controlled, in particular by financial restrictions which limit the turnover to £750, the maximum single prize to £100 and the maximum price of a ticket to 5p. These limits date from the mid-1950s and are clearly far more restrictive today than they were 20 years ago. On the ground of simple inflation alone, there is now a very strong and urgent case for a change in the law.

In 1971 an indepartmental working party of officials was set up to consider lotteries. Its report was published in December 1973. In considering its brief, the working party looked at the whole field of the law relating to lotteries and related competitions, and it made a number of recommendations over this field, dealing with both small and large lotteries. In relation to small public lotteries, the working party recommended a five-fold increase in the financial limits, together with an increase in the present restriction on expenses of 10 per cent. of the proceeds. It also suggested that local authorities should be allowed to run small lotteries of this kind, and that the Gaming Board should be given direct responsibility for the registration of local authority lotteries and a supervisory function over the controls placed on other lotteries.

Since the working party reported, the Home Office has given very close consideration to the recommendations and to comments received from interested people and organisations, with a view to initiating legislation to deal with small lotteries. We fully appreciate that the present Bill is concerned only with small lotteries. I do not think that this is a fault. The question of large lotteries must come later. As was said when the working party's report was published, these issues reveal sharp conflicts of interest and raise large questions of moral and social judgment. They involve, for example, possible changes in the football pools. Much more public discussion will be needed, and over a wide field. But the future of small lotteries can, in our view, be dealt with separately. It is most important, in the Government's view, that we should do something for small lotteries now. I appreciate that some hon. Members hold strong moral views.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts (Cannock)

Does not the Under-Secretary of State agree that if local authorities are asked to set up machinery to carry out small lotteries for very small sums in revenue at this stage, it will be very difficult for them afterwards to move into the field of larger lotteries?

Dr. Summerskill

The local authorities are not being asked to do anything. They are being given permission to do something if they so decide.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts

The thin edge of the wedge.

Dr. Summerskill

Secondly, as I shall endeavour to point out, there will be no difficulty in considering larger lotteries as a separate aspect of legislation. It is a complex aspect and is separate from what the Bill is trying to do, which is to increase the limits of existing lotteries run by charities, sporting organisations, and so on, and at the same time to make it possible for local authorities to have lotteries if they so wish on a basis of parity with the other lotteries.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson (Luton, East)

Before my hon. Friend leaves the historical background to the Bill, will she explain why, if this interdepartmental report was ready in December 1973 and has been considered by the Home Office since then, and if, as she says, the Bill is now considered by the Government to be necessary, there was no mention of the Bill in the Queen's Speech or in either of the manifestos on which the Labour Party fought the 1974 General Eelections?

Dr. Summerskill

Not every piece of Government legislation is necessarily put in the party manifesto and mentioned specifically in the Queen's Speech. But that does not detract from the fact that this legislation has been in the Government's mind ever since the right hon. Member for Crosby brought in his first Bill last year, when I said in Committee that we were not opposed to the principle of local authority lotteries, and certainly on the other aspect of the Bill we have received many representations from sports interests and charity interests to raise the limits on the lotteries which are at present in operation.

I appreciate that some hon. Members have strong moral and ethical objections to any kind of lottery or to gambling, and I respect those feelings. But it is the case that many deserving causes and activities have relied very much on money derived from lotteries run under Section 45 of the 1963 Act. It is also the case that the financial limits in that section—5p for a ticket, £100 for a prize, and £750 turnover—prevent lotteries for a worthwhile purpose giving as much help as they did in the past. There is an immediate need, therefore, for relief of the type provided in this Bill. At the same time, the scheme of the Bill is not inconsistent with later legislation which could produce a coherent law relating all the different facets of long-odds gambling in a sensible and unified structure.

As for the Bill itself, some of the details repeat the existing law contained in the 1963 Act, but there are three major changes. First, the financial limits are increased. Secondly, local authorities are included. Thirdly, a new system of registration involving the Gaming Board is introduced.

The financial limits in the existing law are quite unrealistic in terms of modern money values. Therefore, we propose substantial increases. The Bill provides that lotteries shall be held not more frequently than weekly, and that for any lottery held more frequently than once a month, the limit on the total value of tickets sold will now be £10,000, with a maximum single prize of £1,000 and a ticket price of 25p. If lotteries are held at less frequent intervals, the turnover and prize limits will be higher—£20,000 turnover and a £1,500 prize for a lottery held not more frequently than monthly, and £40,000 turnover and a prize of £2,000 for a lottery held not more frequently than quarterly. These higher limits for lotteries held monthly or less frequently, although of general application, may be of special use to a local authority which does not wish to promote a lottery more frequently than once a month.

The existing limitation on expenses of 10 per cent. of turnover has been relaxed. It has been made clear to us that this is unrealistic in the circumstances of today. Lotteries with a turnover of less than £5,000 may in future appropriate up to 30 per cent. of the proceeds. Those above £5,000, which have to be registered with the Gaming Board—I shall come back to this again in a moment—are limited to 5 per cent. or such larger amount, but not exceeding 30 per cent., as the board may authorise.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington)

Is it correct to say that a local authority which wishes to exercise to the fullest degree the powers granted in the Bill will be able to promote lotteries in a year to the value of £500,000 and spend £1,000 a week on the promotion of gambling?

Dr. Summerskill

They will not be allowed to operate lotteries with a turnover of less than £5,000.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

But, in the course of a year, what will be the total amount that they can raise through lotteries?

Dr. Summerskill

I will calculate that and let the hon. Gentleman know later in the debate.

There is justification for these alterations, in that expenses do not necessarily increase in proportion to turnover. Some expenses—staff costs, office rents and other expenses—are static and, therefore, constitute a higher proportion of the proceeds of small lotteries. The provisions in the Bill should allow sufficient flexibility for everyone while preventing excessive profits for the promoters of large lotteries.

I may say that the Secretary of State is given the power to vary the financial limits in the Bill by order. This should avoid the need for substantive legislation if further alteration seems necessary at some future date.

I come to the major change of principle, which is the inclusion of local authorities. All local authorities will be able to promote lotteries within the same financial limits as those applying to societies. They will, however, have to be registered with the Gaming Board regardless of the size of turnover. The Government made their attitude on this proposal quite clear during the two Second Reading debates and the Committee stage of the Bills promoted by the right hon. Member for Crosby. We accept that local authorities should be allowed to enter the market but only if they are kept to the same limits and conditions as apply to the voluntary societies, on the basis of parity of opportunity.

I shall not go into this in much detail. The House is familiar with the arguments. To give local authorities a greater latitude would be potentially disastrous for many charitable and sporting organisations. It would not lead to the massive injections of revenue which have been imagined. It would have serious implications for the control of gambling. Under the Bill local authorities will be allowed to compete on the same terms to raise a limited amount of money for specific purposes. There is no question of the Bill being a substitute for rates or an alternative method of financing local government. But there may be certain projects or purposes to which a local authority cannot give priority, for which money is clearly needed and for which there is a public demand.

The Bill includes new provisions for the control of lotteries. First, societies which wish to promote lotteries will still be required to register with the local authority. Then, if the expected turnover exceeds £5,000 they will have to register the lottery scheme with the Gaming Board, which will have the power to refuse or to revoke a registration in certain circumstances. Local authorities will be required to have any lottery scheme of their own approved by the whole authority, and all such schemes will then have to be registered with the Gaming Board. The board will have the power to require the provision of accounts and any other information in relation to lottery schemes. The Bill will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations governing provisions to be included in lottery schemes and the promotion of lotteries. These provisions should ensure a degree of uniformity in the nature and conduct of lotteries, as well as introducing a proper degree of skilled surveillance for the larger lotteries permitted under the Bill.

I should like to refer briefly to Clause 14 of the Bill, the primary purpose of which is to amend Section 43 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. Section 43 permits a small lottery to be promoted as an incident of an entertainment, such as a bazaar or a dinner. Under that section, money prizes are not permitted, but up to £10 may be spent on purchasing prizes in the lottery. The interdepartmental working party recommended that the limit of £10 be increased to £50. This will be achieved by Clause 14.

It is important that I say more about the purposes of the Bill. Its main objective is to restore the potential of the provisions on smal lotteries for the many voluntary bodies which benefit from—and in some cases exist on—lottery revenue. This is urgently needed. The position of many organisations would be jeopardised if this reform were to be delayed. As a significant consequence of this we expect that the Bill will prove particularly valuable to football clubs. The League clubs are shortly to be faced with extra expenditure as a result of the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill, a vitally important piece of legislation which I hope the House will approve. The vast majority of these clubs already run lotteries, and we estimate that they should be able to double their existing revenue—said to be around £2 million—as a result of the Bill. This should go a good way towards meeting any new costs. The increase in revenue would be almost immediate. The machinery is there.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

Is the hon. Lady saying that the existing lotteries run by the football clubs are being run under Section 5 with a limited turnover of £750? If that limited turnover is to go up from £750 to £40,000, why does she assume that it would merely double their revenue?

Dr. Summerskill

That estimate is a cautious one; we do not want to be too optimistic. It is the estimate which the football clubs have accepted. Obviously, there will be variations in what the clubs bring in: some are much better organised and much bigger than others.

Mr. Clemitson

My hon. Friend has referred to revenue from lotteries run by football clubs being substantially increased. She said that the Bill would permit, for the first time, local authorities to run lotteries on the same basis as other organisations. Does she anticipate that the total amount of gambling as a result of the Bill will be increased or does she anticipate that people will spend more on certain types of gambling and less on others?

Dr. Summerskill

That is a matter of opinion. I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the possibility that lotteries run by local authorities will take money from existing gambling.

Mr. Clemitson

With respect, my hon. Friend has just said that the anticipated revenue from football clubs running lotteries would increase considerably.

Dr. Summerskill

We seem to be at cross-purposes. If the legal limits are increased, this will clearly help the football club lotteries. The total effect on the overall gambling scene remains to be seen. It is a fluctuating business and we cannot make definite predictions. The increase to football clubs would be almost immediate.

I draw the attention of the House to the provisions of Clause 13 of the Bill. In general it will be necessary for regulations containing detailed conditions to be made before the various sections of the Act can be brought into operation. But Clause 13 is an interim provision which will permit societies promoting lotteries to increase ticket prices to 25p, individual prizes to £1,000 and turnover to £5,000 as soon as it is brought into operation by an order under Clause 18. That could be soon after Royal Assent. It should help football clubs.

While acknowledging that the Bill is limited in scope, the Government regard it as a practical measure for which there is urgent need and which would not be at variance with a wider reform of the law at a later date.

Sir Stephen McAdden (Southend, East)

I hope the hon. Lady is not going to sit down without informing the House of the meaning of Schedule 3. During the Committee stage of the Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) the hon. Lady made the point that lotteries conducted under his Bill would be subject to pool betting duty. I am not a lawyer, but my right hon. Friend is. He gives me to understand that the effect of Schedule 3 will be to remove pool betting duty from lotteries conducted under this Bill.

Dr. Summerskill

The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) is perfectly correct in his understanding.

I commend the Bill to the House.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash)

The hon. Lady has moved the Second Reading with competence and in a factual and neutral style. I believe that she should have struck one or two notes which I should like to strike in making a proper appraisal of the Bill.

First, there is the recognition of the social background to the Bill. The Interdepartmental Working Party on Lotteries said that there was no country, certainly in the western world, where the opportunities for gambling are so prolific as they are here. This situation gives rise to the staggering annual gambling turnover of £2,500 million. There is a net annual loss to gamblers, some of them compulsive gamblers, of about £800 million. No appraisal of the Bill, certainly no appraisal by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), would be complete without due recognition of this sobering reality.

Secondly, I strike a note of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for not only having had the perspicacity to take note of the extent of gambling in this country but for having had enough imagination, initiative and persistence to construct a method for harnessing this spinning wheel of fortune to a social purpose.

The Bill's pedigree is in reality very much a Conservative one. The drive came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and the nuts and bolts came from the "small lotteries" section of the report of the Working Party on Lotteries which was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn when they were in office.

Mr. Kenneth Marks (Manchester, Gorton)

Why did the Conservative Government not introduce this provision into the Finance Bill in December 1973?

Mr. Alison

Because we are great believers in private enterprise. The hon. Lady is not the progenitor of the Bill. She is its midwife. The credit belongs to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn.

The question arises whether the Home Office made a good job of the ingredients which they left behind.

Dr. Summerskill

On a point of information, in case any hon. Members are under the impression that the Government's Bill is the same as that introduced by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) I should point out that the right hon. Gentleman's limits and scale were far too excessive for our liking. Certainly on that score there is no similarity between the two Bills.

Mr. Alison

That is the point to which I am now coming. Having clearly established the pedigree and origin of this measure I want to consider whether the Government have produced anything out of the ingredients left in the Home Office by my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends which make sense.

I turn, first, to the local authority provisions. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby had exactly the right instinct and strategy in concentrating in his Bill on local authorities. If there is to be massive indulgence in gambling in Britain, if there is to be a net loss by gamblers of £800 million a year, there is a clear case not only for trying to harness this instinct to a constructive social purpose, but for priority to be given to supporting the essential, environmental and personal social services provided by local government before anything else. That is why my right hon. Friend was right to concentrate on that aspect. Not only did his Bill feature this priority but it underwrote it with financial provisions which I understand would have yielded up to £6 million per local authority per annum as distinct from about £520,000 per local authority per annum in the Government's Bill.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, because of the limitations of the measure, the cost factor of operation by a local authority will adversely affect its net revenue? If so, the figures are even greater than £6 million and £520,000 in real terms.

Mr. Alison

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his support for my general proposition that the Government have made a muddle of the local government provisions of my right hon. Friend's Bill in the Bill that they have brought forward.

This Bill unquestionably drastically revises downwards, as the Minister admitted, and as provided for in Clause 9(9), my right hon. Friend's original turnover limits. It may be argued that the Government were justified in scaling down these financial provisions because they were filling the gap left by my right hon. Friend by providing for private societies, charities, football clubs, and so on, but I fear that the result may be the worst, not the best, of both worlds. The larger authorities, like the Greater London Council, may opt out because the potential yield and relative cost respectively will be too low and too high, and only the smaller local authorities will opt in. That would not have been the situation with my right hon. Friend's Bill. Paradoxically, the smaller local authorities opting in will be the most serious threat to small local charities, private societies, football clubs, and so on, which the Bill sets about trying to enfranchise but is potentially going to threaten.

It could be argued, as I believe my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn would argue—and has argued—that if the Government decided drastically to scale down the financial limits in my right hon. Friend's Bill they should have gone the whole hog and adopted the really modest limits suggested in the working party's report. Instead, they have gone for the unhappy medium which is not big enough for the major local authorities but is sufficiently large to be a real threat, in small local lotteries, to the private societies which the Bill seeks to enfranchise. In other words, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn said on Second Reading of my right hon. Friend's Bill the Government have made a muddle of it. They have fallen between two stools.

The Government, to their credit, have provided flexible powers for changing the rates. In Committee we shall be able to look at the rates. It may be that we shall want to consider raising the limits rather nearer to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby proposed in his Bill, with perhaps his original and interesting device of ordering, by statute, a creaming off of some percent- tage of local authority lotteries for local charities and private societies. We can consider that matter in Committee.

My second broad criticism of the Bill relates to the complicated bureaucratic provisions for registration and surveillance. I do not complain that some kind of machinery of registration and surveillance should be provided—indeed, I stress the importance that I attach to registration and surveillance—but I think that the dual provision for the registration of societies with a local government registrar and for the registration of schemes with the separate Gaming Board—both local authorities and voluntary societies have to register schemes with the Gaming Board—is complicated. Indeed it seems paradoxical for local authorities to have to register schemes with the board when in some circumstances voluntary societies do not. It seems an extremely complex, bureaucratic and rather convoluted way of making everybody go in varied directions to separate registering authorities.

Is there not a danger that the Gaming Board will get so bogged down with the mass of details, provided by every small lottery scheme which sends in an application, that its broad duty of exercising vigilance over gaming in this country in the round will be seriously jeopardised and compromised?

It is worth pointing out—I am indebted to Mr. G. E. Moody, secretary to the Churches Council on Gambling, for his advice here—that 14,000 betting offices in Britain with a turnover of £1,500 million a year have no such overseeing board as is provided in the Bill with its modest provisions for small lotteries. The betting shops provide the easiest access to hard gambling in the world outside Las Vegas. That is what we have now without any surveillance comparable to that provided for in the Bill.

I think that the provisions relating to the Gaming Board and local registration by local authorities need to be carefully looked at. The Bill ought to concentrate local registration on and by local authorities, to make certain that the Gaming Board has a free hand for its generalised function of broad national surveillance of gaming.

There are one or two more technical points on which I should like to touch. Perhaps the Minister will comment on them in winding up.

It is not clear to me whether separate local branches of national societies are to be treated separately from the point of view of being able to run local lotteries. There is a reference to branches of national societies in Clause 1(2), but it is not clear to me whether each distinct branch of a national organisation will be able to run its own local lottery.

Secondly, on this more technical aspect, why does the phrase "specified purposes" in Clause 4(3), dealing with local authorities, relate back to subsection (2)(a) which deals with private societies, not local government lotteries? There seems to be a muddle here. I do not believe that the concept of "specified purposes" has been properly thought through and presented in the Bill.

Finally, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2, dealing with registration of schemes by the board, states: The Secretary of State may direct the Board to restore any registration which, in pursuance of paragraph 4 … the Board have revoked". There is apparently no power in the Bill for anybody to appeal to the Secretary of State. Does the Secretary of State act entirely independently, or is there to be provision for people to appeal to him?

Those are modest technical points on the Bill. We shall want to discuss many other matters in Committee. I know that we are having a short debate, but some of my hon. Friends want to comment on the Bill.

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

Does not all that the hon. Gentleman has said amount to this, that we have in the Bill an excellent framework, and everything he has suggested is a matter to be dealt with in Committee?

Mr. Alison

Not at all. I have tried to show that the Bill makes a fundamental mistake in scaling down the local government financial limits—which is perhaps the most important thing that the Minister mentioned—which my right hon. Friend provided for, yet paradoxically the Government may not have scaled them down enough. They have fallen between two stools.

On account of its inspiration and pedigree—my right hon. Friend's Bill— I welcome the Bill, but because of its evident shortcomings, my welcome on behalf of the Opposition is only guarded. We shall seek to improve it in Committee.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said that Britain is a gambler's paradise. I do not necessarily agree, but I assume that he was referring to the loss of £8,000 million in that way. He thought that that was a bad thing. He then expressed support for the Bill if the prizes were larger, which would mean an extension of gambling. I do not see how he can take both views.

Because of earlier events in this Chamber today, there is a total of 76 minutes for the Second Reading debate. Forty minutes have been taken up by the two Front Benchers and presumably a Minister will also want to reply. Thirty other hon. Members wish to speak. The best thing that the Ministers can do is intimate through the usual channels that they will not ask for a decision tonight. There has been one revolt already today, and there might be another at 7 o'clock. There is time for that comment to be passed on to those concerned.

In the Labour Party, capital punishment, temperance and gambling have always been matters of conscience. I do not go around with my conscience on my sleeve, but I do not think that the Government should try too hard for a Second Reading tonight. They should be more sensitive.

I object to the Bill in principle, and I object to the effect that it might have on the employment of my constituents. The Minister moved the Second Reading in her usual lucid and calm manner. If anyone could persuade me to support the Bill it would be she and her hon. Friend. But they have not done so. Whatever fine words the Bill is wrapped up in, this is a gambling Bill, designed to legalise what is now unlawful, and it is brought forward at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.

Although the title—Lotteries Bill—seems innocuous, it is designed to increase the facilities for gambling, and it must do without my support. Its supporters argue that the gambling would be for a worthy cause. How often have we heard that the means justify the end? The fact that a cause is worthy should not automatically ensure support for the means by which the cause is to be advanced. Behind all the attractive facade, the Bill will enable charities or local government to promise something for very little, advantages without effort, better services without increased costs. The Bill remains a gambling Bill.

Clauses 1 and 2 extend the present legislation concerning societies and charities. I was concerned when the Minister said that because football clubs have to extend their safety provisions this would be one way of raising the money. Are we really saying that the best way to pay for the safety of football clubs is through lotteries? Is that the situation that this country is in?

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the football crowds in his constituency are usually between 40,000 and 50,000? Many small clubs desperately need this kind of assistance.

Mr. Ogden

There are small clubs in my area, too. We certainly have the best football teams in the country, large or small. But whether clubs are large or small their safety precautions should be paid for at the gate and not by the chance of whether a lottery is or is not successful.

Some of the provisions to extend charity legislation seem reasonable, but on the local government side I have a fundamental objection. Local authorities are not just one more kind of organisation. I do not elect my city councillors to go into the gambling business. They should control, but not take part. It is a backward step in local government to start promising a swiming pool or something else for nothing. Our local government did not grow up to offer something for nothing. If we want people to run a casino, we should give them the concession and take the taxes and rates. But I do not expect councillors to go into the business of gaming or gambling. That is not their task.

The Bill may help charities, yet I have a letter from the Information Officer of the Central Council of Physical Recrea- tion, Mr. Peter Cheney, in which he says: I do hope you will bear in mind the plight facing the voluntary bodies as regards finance. We are desperately short of money and any fresh competition for the steadily dwindling amount of available public money will mean that many voluntary organisations will be faced with the possibility of closure. So the attempt to extend the operations of charity lotteries might be required to meet the threat of local government lotteries. With all her experience and advice, the Minister could not say whether the increased revenue would come from gambling or from a transference from existing lotteries. I doubt whether a local government or national lottery will be as profitable as the supporters suggest. The best way to support a charity is to give money direct. That is worth more to a local charity than any lottery.

Many Members in the other debate, on 31st January, said that local authority lotteries would affect not only fund-raising but other aspects of local charities. My concern is also that the existence of local government lotteries would increase demands for a national lottery. The key to success for any lottery or gamble is the size of the prize. Nationally, the prize would have to be big.

In this Bill, the Government have apparently adopted the first stage of the report of the inter-departmental working party on gaming and lotteries. Before we move on to any second stage, there should be a White Paper. With all the Royal Commissions being set up these days, it is time for one on gambling, which could hear more than the evidence available to civil servants and make properly considered and presented recommendations.

I am even more concerned about the effect of local lotteries and the demand for a national lottery on employment in my city and my constituency—of which area the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) also ably represents a part. I am sure that a number of his constitutents also work in the pools organisations in Liverpool, in which are situated the headquarters of one football pools organisation and the major part of another. Littlewoods Pools employ 10,000 people and Vernons 4,000. This is not the time, on Merseyside or anywhere else, for increased threats of unemployment.

Vernons paid £17 million in tax in 1973–74 and Littlewoods almost £45 million. The treasury has a real interest in that sort of money. I am concerned with the effects on employment, more than the financial aspects. The Minister recognised this on 31st January, when he said that I was concerned about the effect on employment that the right hon. Member for Crosby's Bill would have. I hope that the Government will bear this important aspect in mind.

Certainly, if the Government are to extend facilities for gambling of one kind and another they ought to be looking at the restrictions that are placed on football pools organisations as regards advertising, whether in the Press or on television, and other restrictions now imposed on football pools promoters.

If there is to be gambling, of which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash spoke, let there be free competition between one part and the other. I would put one question to my hon. Friend. If I read it aright, Clause 1(2)(c) of the Bill speaks of purposes which are not described in paragraph (a) above and are neither purposes of private gain nor purposes of any commercial undertaking; Without in any way trespassing on a debate which is to follow this at 7 o'clock, I would think that, inadvertently, either the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) or Her Majesty the Queen, under the terms of this Bill, could promote a Royal Lottery or a Central Fife Lottery. That is something which may not have been brought to the attention of either Her Majesty or my hon. Friend for Fife, Central.

Lastly, I would raise with my hon. Friends the timing of this Bill. Why this Bill now? Certainly, I did not campaign in West Derby at any time during the last 10 years for a Labour Government which would bring forward a Lotteries Bill. There was nothing about this in the October Queen's Speech, unless it was the reference: Other measures will be laid before the House". There was certainly nothing about it in the Labour Party manifesto. It comes at a time when the Government—and Opposition parties, to be fair—are saying that this is a time for three or four years' hard work and sacrifice. For a Government to bring forward a Bill which allows people to get something for nothing shows a degree of insensitivity such as I have seldom met before.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

I have already spoken several times on this subject when I was very anxious that the Bill of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) should get through. It did so in the last Parliament but, unfortunately, it was thrown out by another place. I welcome the Bill, though some of my colleagues will share the view of The Times leader, which spoke of this as a not very dignified way of raising revenue. I disagree with that, but I also have my reservations about the content of this measure.

I support the original view of the County Councils Association that there should be no objection in principle to subsidising sport and recreation—to which I would add the word "culture"—by money derived from lotteries. But I also support the view expressed from the Opposition Front Bench that a lottery should be of such a size as to justify the administrative cost. Personally, I regret the apparent change of mind of the CCA, which I am certain does not reflect the views of my own local authority or many others.

I fully respect the views against gambling expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), but it seems odd that he should also be speaking for his own constituency, which happens to contain two of the biggest gambling organisations. One is either for or against. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be amended in Committee to make the stakes more worth while. I entirely agree that this will help charities, and certainly football clubs. But I do not think local authorities are going to be greatly interested, for reasons that hav already been given. If the Bill is amended I do not believe that the smaller charities will suffer, though the large promoters might provide more competition for the football pools, which some may feel might not be such a bad thing. Certainly, all the clubs in the South virtually survive through one-armed bandits. My own club, on the Isle of Wight, raises over £8,000 per year by their use.

It is my view that only the larger authorities should promote lotteries, and preferably not more than one or two a year; and the sale of tickets should be restricted within county boundaries. In the hope that the Government will see sense again and accept amendments along these lines, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to give this measure a Second Reading this evening.

The Deputy Speaker

This debate is due to finish at 7 o'clock. [An hon. Member: "Shame!"] The House, not I, decided, on an earlier motion. That puts me in a very difficult position. If I now call an hon. Member I shall be glad if he will sit down by twenty minutes to 7 o'clock, so that there may be concluding speeches.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw (Ilford, South)

I appreciate the difficulty in which you find yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the same time, I must add my voice to that of the lion. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) in protesting against the paucity of time allocated to this debate. After all, the subject touches many people, and this afternoon we have had the spectacle of an hon. Member on the Opposition side wasting the time of the House. By debating this Bill this afternoon we are wasting the time of the House, because I feel that a measure of this kind should not be before the House at this or any other time.

I well remember when we were discussing the measure brought forward by the right hon. Member for Crosby that there was a great deal of debate and objections were made and I should have thought that this subject might have been wound up altogether on that occasion. I also remember that at Business Question Time on Thursday last my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) taxed the right hon. Member the Lord President of the Council asking him why this Bill, which nobody, apart from the right hon. Member for Crosby, seems to want, should be brought forward at this time. I thought the Lord President seemed very sad when he said that one of his colleagues had made a promise that the measure would be brought forward within a month, as a result of which we have it this afternoon.

In my opinion, this measure is a nonevent. Even now, with all the promises which it pretends to hold out the voluntary organisations are fearful that the net result will be to stultify their efforts. Many of them fear that they will have to close down, leaving their work to be done by local authorities, Government organisations and others so that in the long run we shall all lose.

I pass to another point relevant to this Bill, raised by my hon. Friend the Minister, who said that one of the important aspects of the Bill was that it would help to provide funds for football clubs in the event of the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill becoming the law of the land. This is problematical. It was pointed out in a recent debate that there is some dubiety on the question whether commercial organisations such as football clubs would come within the ambit of this Bill.

I would put another point to hon. Members. A direction has been put on this point by the Minister that, in all fairness, any idea that local authorities might be helped with the rates as a result is just not on. Hon. Members should therefore think very carefully before voting for this measure, considering that ratepayers, if they are to be helped at all in this respect, will receive only infinitesimal help. But for the shortness of time I would seek to quote from a statement made by the Greater London Council, which clearly pointed out that it would not be feasible for it to mount a lottery under its own auspices. The Government are falling between two stools. The proposals in the Bill, while providing little benefit for local authorities, will pose a threat to the voluntary organisations.

As I have said, the Bill is a nonevent. I shall conclude my speech shortly—although from some indications I hear, some of my hon. Friends are telling me not to do so.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."] I shall conclude, because I think that we should take a vote on this matter.

I echo the sentiments expressed by the leader of my local authority. He has said that councils have enough to do without organising lotteries. All in all, it would be a mercy if the Bill were quietly forgotten. I propose to divide the House against it this evening.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

In the short time that I wish to take up, I want to express my objections to this Bill, which has been concocted by the Government. It is a different Bill from that presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), to which some of us objected on 31st January.

Possibly one of the most striking differences in this Bill is the fact that under these proposals, which will enable a promoting local authority to run a lottery, a staggering amount of money is involved. It could amount to a tremendous total, annually. Since the debate on 31st January I have ascertained from the Library the number of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales which, under the terms of the Bill if it were passed, would be entitled to run a lottery. A staggering total of no fewer than 8,600 local authorities, would be new promoting agencies. I am not surprised that the Under-Secretary looks at me in amazement. That is the total—8,600. If they each ran a weekly lottery with a maximum turnover of £10,000 a week, the possible annual turnover of lottery money by local authorities could be no less than £4,350 million. My major objection. On 31st January I was apprehensive about what would happen to the social, political, sporting, religious and cultural lotteries. Under the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, I was afraid—because he made no mention of them in his Bill—that they would be swamped. But with this new power of raising revenue that is to be granted to every local authority in the country, I am more than ever convinced that social, sporting and all other local lotteries which are run at present will be utterly swamped, and that the clubs and organisations concerned will be in severe financial difficulties. For that reason alone, I have very grave reservations about the whole of this Bill.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks (Manchester, Gorton)

I am sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members who hope to speak later in the debate, as well as for myself, when I say that the time that has been allotted to the debate on the Bill is quite inadequate. I am aware that earlier today the House passed a motion which meant that there would be a vote at 7 o'clock, but I am sure that all hon. Members who agreed to that motion did so on the assumption that there would be a debate of about three hours on this Bill. I know of no other controversial Bill, be it a Private Member's Bill or a Government Bill, which has been allowed to go to a vote on Second Reading with this amount of discussion, one and a quarter hours, of which the Front Benches propose to take one hour.

Mr. Stephen Ross

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there was a fuller debate when the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) was before the House, and that matters were discussed then?

Mr. Marks

We are here to debate the Second Reading of a Government Bill. That is what I had hoped to do.

I am aware that a number of points must be made, and I want to leave some time to my hon. Friend the Minister. All that I say to him is this. In the Labour Party manifesto we said that public services ought to be paid for by the public. The only argument is about how to share the costs, not how to avoid them. We have set up a committee to examine ways in which local authorities can raise their finances. This Bill pre-empts the examination that is now being undertaken. It is no use saying that it is not a substitute for rates. Clause 4 says: A local authority may promote a lottery for any purposes for which they have power to incur expenditure under any enactment". If it is not a substitute for rates, it is an incitement to local authorities to spend more at the present time, which is utterly wrong.

A local authority lottery would be wasteful in terms of manpower and costly in administration. The people who would buy the tickets would be those who, in the main, cannot afford them but who hope to make £1,000 to get themselves out of difficulties. It will be the women who go to the shops, the public libraries, the washhouses and other public places who will give rise to an increase in gambling.

I had intended to abstain from voting, because I could not support the Government in permitting local authorities to run lotteries of this kind. In view of the time available for the debate, however, I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) when he divides the House on this matter.

6.46 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington)

I shall not attempt to make a Second Reading speech in view of the time limit. I want to register an appeal with you, Mr. Speaker, about protection of back benchers in situations such as this. It is a matter of extreme controversy whether local authorities should be put into a position in which they will have little choice but to operate schemes of this kind. It is utterly wrong that we should have only a little over an hour in which to debate a Bill which contains much that is good as well as much to which hon. Members, quite rightly, are objecting. I hope that those who are responsible for deciding Government business will recognise the genuine feelings on their own benches, as well as those on the Opposition benches, and will not insist on the Question being put in about 10 minutes' time. So much more could be said, and I trust that other opportunities will be given for that. Therefore, I shall sit down in the hope that we may get a statement now from the Government.

6.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes)

I accept the criticisms which have been made from both sides of the House about the time for the debate. I want to say very clearly that I think that all hon. Members appreciate that it is not really the Government's fault that this time has been so restricted. It was expected that the debate would start at about 3.30 p.m. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). When we were discussing the Bill of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) less than a month ago, for a whole day, the arguments for and against local authorities having powers to run lotteries were fully rehearsed. Indeed, last year, when the right hon. Gentleman presented his Bill, the House passed the principle—that lotteries should be run. There was some question from the Government side as to the actual extent and amounts under the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. That criticism has been debated or touched upon this evening.

Mr. Farr

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Oakes

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), first.

Mr. Farr

The hon. Gentleman is aware that we have not had the Government's Bill for very long, and that it is very different from my right hon. Friend's Bill. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that it arouses a good deal of controversy in the House in these circumstances. Does he agree that the right course of action to take is not to try to get the Second Reading debate concluded today but to give the House an opportunity to study these very important matters at leisure and at length, on a subsequent date?

Mr. Oakes

On that point, I was saying that the Bill of the right hon. Member for Crosby was debated and that the principle was accepted by the House. When the right hon. Gentleman's Bill was debated and subsequently withdrawn, it was on the understanding that the Government Bill—which was then before the House and had had a First Reading—would be taken within a month. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for us either to withdraw the Bill or to postpone it today.

I have no doubt that hon. Members have criticisms of the Bill. Many of those hon. Members may be members of the Standing Committee, and they can voice their criticism in Committee and make amendments.

Mr. James Lamond

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Oakes

I shall give way in a moment. Subsequently the Bill will return to the Floor of the House for the Report Stage and Third Reading, when many of the points which hon. Members wish to make can be raised. I should have thought that the principle, particularly with regard to the extension of the power to have lotteries—there is no compulsion in the Bill—if local authorities so wish, had really been accepted by the House in the previous Parliament.

Mr. James Lamond

Is not this an extraordinary argument for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to put forward? If he feels that the Bill was adequately discussed on Friday 31st January, why did the Front Benches, in opening and winding up, feel it necessary to take over 60 per cent. of the time available for discussion today? If this were a Friday and the closure was proposed on a Private Members' Bill after an hour and a half's debate, it would be refused.

Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not in any way a vociferous type of person. I sit back and listen, but I submit that I am entitled to raise a point of order on this issue. Some of us regard the matter which we are now debating as being as important as that which we debated earlier, and as important as, if not more important than, the one on which we are about to embark at 7 o'clock. From time to time, Mr. Speaker, I have heard you say that you must protect the rights of the minority interests in this House. I am claiming that the Minister, in his reply, is steam-rolling the rights of the minority. I ask for your protection because this is a very important measure, which will have a serious effect not only upon sporting organisations but upon the lives, homes and happiness of millions of our people. I ask for your guidance on the question whether you can ensure that this debate can be continued at some time after 7 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member has raised this as a point of order. I do not think it is for me to express an opinion on the extent to which I sympathise with him. The House has already decided this matter today without a Division.

Mr. Ron Lewis

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House decided that matter on the understanding that this issue would be proceeded with at half-past 3 o'clock, or 3.45 this afternoon. It was 5.45 when we started. We have been debating this for only one hour and eight minutes, so far. This is not good enough for a Second Reading debate. In fairness to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), with whose approach to the Bill I disagree, he is entitled to have his say on the Floor of the House. I plead with you and with the Government spokesman: do not steamroller us. We have been loyal to you time and time again. In my opinion, this is a prostitution of our democratic procedures.

Mr. Speaker

So far as those remarks are addressed to me, I have noted them, but I do not think I can help. So far as they are addressed to the Government, that is a different matter. The hon. Member says that it was expected that this matter would be started after about half-past 3 o'clock. If he had looked at the Order Paper and had considered the possibilities he might have had some doubts. I confess that I was slightly surprised that the Business motion got through unopposed.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion passed by the House was that you should put the Question on the Second Reading of the Lotteries Bill not later than 7 o'clock. I take it that that would not prevent the Government, if they so chose, withdrawing the Bill at this stage and re-presenting it?

Mr. Speaker

Certainly it would not.

Mr. Ogden

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your ruling and the fact that we, as always, are directing our comments through you to other Members of the House, it will be within your recollection that on Friday 31st January Government Members opposed the adjournment of the House, my right hon. Friend who was to wind up stating that we should not adjourn then because other Members wished to take part in the debate. That was after two and a half hours of debate. We have now had less than one and a quarter hours of debate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is in the unenviable position of having to support his Department. We say that one and a quarter hours debate on this Bill—I am not referring to what happened to a Private Members' Bill on a Friday; a Bill that no longer exists—is not good enough. My right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are causing more difficulties than they need. They could avoid those difficulties with a little sensitivity.

Mr. Oakes

I am not certain whether that was a point of order.

Mr. Farr

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) a moment ago that you felt that these matters were not matters for you. With the greatest possible respect, I suggest that what may be within your ambit is to consider whether you feel that the rights of all Members in this House—back-bench Members as well as Front-Bench Members—have been properly studied and have not been curtailed in any way by having only one and a quarter hours, or whatever it is, in which to debate the Second Reading of this important Bill. I submit that you have this responsibility conferred upon you, Mr. Speaker, and that in that respect you have an opportunity to say whether you think the time at our disposal is adequate.

Mr. Speaker

I must give a straight answer. I think I am bound by the Business motion which has already been passed. Mr. Oakes.

Mr. Oakes

The Business motion before the House means that a vote must take place at 7 o'clock. The only option to me is to withdraw the Bill, and I can tell the House that this is a Government—

Sir B. Rhys Williams

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Under-Secretary says that the only option open to him is to withdraw the Bill. Surely, it is not obligatory on the Government to put Tellers in if a Division is called, in which case the Division could be called off.

Mr. Ron Lewis

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was not a precedent set some time ago, on the Bill concerning the wearing of safety belts? The Minister at the Dispatch Box on that occasion said that he would consider the matter and would continue the debate on another occasion. If that was done on one measure, it can be done likewise on this important measure.

Mr. Speaker

It is open to the Minister to seek to adjourn the debate if he thinks fit. I shall have to put the Question at 7 o'clock.

Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who is now on the Government Front Bench, could surely help his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary out of his dilemma.

Mr. Oakes

The principle of the Bill—not the Bill, but the principle—has been debated, and I can assure hon. Members that many people outside the House, particularly in charitable and sporting organisations, are very anxious that the limits should be increased. They want the Bill to go through for that reason. As for the local authority part of the Bill, local authorities are put into a position whereby, if they choose, they can operate lotteries for specific schemes.

Mr. Ron Lewis

The local authorities do not want it.

Mr. Oakes

If local authorities do not want it, they are under no obligation whatsoever to operate the provisions of this measure, but they have the powers to operate it if they so wish.

Many hon. Members have raised various points to which I have not had the opportunity to reply. I assure them that we shall give written replies to the various points which have been raised. The Bill is not a major measure, but it is an important Bill which will give considerable assistance to small lotteries by increasing the limits, which were set 12 years ago, to realistic levels within the present context of the value of money, and extends that provision to local authorities as well.

For that reason I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill. When that has been done, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said, it can be debated and discussed in detail in Committee and, indeed, on the Floor of the House during its Report and Third Reading stages, when many of the worries that hon. Members have expressed during this debate can be dealt with at a far better level.

It being Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER, put the Question pursuant to order this day, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 64.

Division No. 111.] AYES [7.0 p.m.
Abse, Leo Ewing, Harry (Stirling) McElhone, Frank
Adley, Robert Eyre, Reginald Macfarlane, Neil
Alison, Michael Fairbairn, Nicholas MacFarquhar, Roderick
Allaun, Frank Faulds, Andrew MacGregor, John
Archer, Peter Finsberg, Geoffrey Mackenzie, Gregor
Ashley, Jack Fisher, Sir Nigel Mackintosh, John P.
Ashton, Joe Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Maclennan, Robert
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Flannery, Martin McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest)
Banks, Robert Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McNamara, Kevin
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel Fookes, Miss Janet Madden, Max
Bates, Alf Ford, Ben Magee, Bryan
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Forrester, John Mahon, Simon
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Marquand, David
Benyon, W. Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Biffen, John Freeson, Reginald Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Bishop, E. S Freud Clement Marten, Neil
Blenkinsop, Arthur Fry, Peter Mates, Michael
Boardman, H. Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mather, Carol
Booth, Albert George, Bruce Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Gilbert, Dr John Mayhew, Patrick
Boscawen, Hon Robert Ginsburg, David Meacher, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Goodhart, Philip Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Gourlay, Harry Mendelson, John
Braine, Sir Bernard Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Meyer, Sir Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Graham, Ted Mikardo, Ian
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Millan, Bruce
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Grist, Ian Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Buchanan, Richard Grocott, Bruce Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Budgen, Nick Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Bulmer, Esmond Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Molloy, William
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hamling, William Montgomery, Fergus
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Harper, Joseph Moonman, Eric
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Moore, John (Croydon C)
Canavan, Dennis Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Carmichael, Neil Hawkins, Paul Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Carter, Ray Hayman Mrs Helene Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Churchill, W. S Healey, Rt Hon Denis Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Clegg, Walter Horam, John Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Cockcroft, John Hordern, Peter Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Cohen, Stanley Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Neave, Airey
Coleman, Donald Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N) Neubert, Michael
Conlan, Bernard Hughes, Roy (Newport) Newton, Tony
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Hunter, Adam Noble, Mike
Corbett, Robin Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Normanton, Tom
Cormack, Patrick James, David Oakes, Gordon
Corrie, John Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) O'Halloran, Michael
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Jessel, Toby Onslow, Cranley
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Johnson, James (Hull West) Orbach, Maurice
Crouch, David Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Osborn, John
Crowder, F. P. Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Ovenden, John
Cryer, Bob Jones, Barry (East Flint) Owen, Dr David
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Davidson, Arthur Judd, Frank Palmer, Arthur
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Kaberry Sir Donald Pardoe, John
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Kaufman, Gerald Park, George
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Parker, John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Kelley, Richard Pendry, Tom
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Kerr, Russell Peyton, Rt Hon John
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Kershaw, Anthony Phipps, Dr Colin
Doig, Peter Kimball, Marcus Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Lambie, David Price C. (Lewisham W)
Duffy, A. E. P. Lamborn, Harry Radice, Giles
Dunn, James A, Langford-Holt, Sir John Rathbone, Tim
Dunnett, Jack Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Durant, Tony Lawrence, Ivan Richardson, Miss Jo
Dykes, Hugh Leadbitter, Ted Rifkind, Malcolm
Eadie, Alex Lee, John Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Le Marchant, Spencer Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Edge, Geoff Lester, Jim (Beeston) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lever, Rt Hon Harold Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) Lipton, Marcus Rooker, J. W.
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Luard, Evan Rose, Paul B.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Luce, Richard Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
English, Michael Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) McCartney, Hugh Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Evans John (Newton) Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Ryman, John Spriggs, Leslie Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Sainsbury, Tim Stallard A. W. Wall, Patrick
Sedgemore, Brian Stanbrook, Ivor Warren, Kenneth
Selby, Harry Stanley, John Watkins, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Steel, David (Roxburgh) Watkinson, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) Weatherill, Bernard
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) Stoddart, David Weitzman, David
Shelton, William (Streatham) Strang, Gavin Wellbeloved, James
Shepherd, Colin Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. Wells, John
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley Whitehead, Phillip
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) Whitlock, William
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) Tebbit, Norman Wiggin, Jerry
Silverman, Julius Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Silvester, Fred Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Sims, Roger Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Sinclair, Sir George Tinn, James Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Skeet. T. H. H. Tomlinson, John Winterton, Nicholas
Skinner, Dennis Tomney, Frank Wise, Mrs Audrey
Small, William Tugendhat, Christopher Wrigglesworth, Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. Young, David (Bolton E)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Snape, Peter Wakeham, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Speed, Keith Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) Mr. J. D. Dormand and
Spence, John Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Mr. Laurie Pavitt.
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Beith, A. J. Gould, Bryan Mudd, David
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Nelson, Anthony
Bidwell, Sydney Grimond, Rt Hon J. Ogden, Eric
Body, Richard Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Paisley, Rev Ian
Brotherton, Michael Hatton, Frank Parry, Robert
Campbell, Ian Janner, Greville Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Carson, John Kilroy-Silk, Robert Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Cartwright, John King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Roper, John
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Kinnock, Neil Sandelson, Neville
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen Kitson, Sir Timothy Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Lamond, James Sillars, James
Cordle, John H. Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Stainton, Keith
Costain, A. P. Litterick, Tom Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Dalyell, Tam Loyden, Eddie Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Dempsey, James McAdden, Sir Stephen White, Frank R. (Bury)
Dunlop, John McCusker, H. White, James (Pollok)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth McGuire, Michael (Ince) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Fairgrieve, Russell Marks, Kenneth Woodall, Alec
Farr, John Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Mills, Peter TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Molyneaux, James Mr. Ivor Clemitson and
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Monro, Hector Mr. George Rodgers.
Golding, John Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).