SMALL LOTTERIES AND GAMING BILL (Hansard, 15 May 1956)

§ LORD LAWSON

My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on this Bill and on this matter generally. I was extremely sorry that I could not be in my place when the Second Reading was debated. I do not wish to detain your Lordships for any length of time, but may I say that for many years nothing has pleased me more than the speech which was made by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury against the Second Reading of this Bill and the extension of the principle by the Government as shown by the premium bonds proposal. Nothing has surprised me more than that proposal. One has no particular objection to regularising and equalising the law, but one knows very well that once one begins regularising certain actions of this kind, there is no telling where it will end.

As a matter of fact, I think that what has happened is that the Government have assumed that, because this Bill had a fairly quiet passage, therefore there was no great objection in the country to the principle of legalising gambling. Everyone knows what gambling is. It can be a personal matter that does not touch the law. But at a time when the Government are urging everybody to be serious and to increase output, a proposal is made which means getting something for nothing. That negatives the position taken up by the Government, and must leave room for thought for those who have serious consideration for the future of this country. I do not wish to launch into a speech about this matter, but few things have given me greater pleasure than the challenge to it by the most reverend Primate.

If this extension goes forward in the form in which it is proposed, I hope this country will rise to the situation. I believe that there never was a time in the 404 history of this country when citizens more needed to be serious about the future. At a time when great changes are taking place in the industrial organisation, changes which need serious consideration on the part of every citizen, I believe it is wrong that the mind should be directed to gambling. That is where we are going —there is no doubt about it. It is just a "try-on" for lotteries on an extensive scale. No one knows the full effect of gambling upon the human mind. I do not mind telling the House that I have had "a penn'orth". I know its disturbing influence. I know the passion that lays hold of men and women, and I know some of the effects upon the life of the people. I wish to take this opportunity of saying that I hope the Government, before they extend this principle, will take note of the fact that the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for great masses of people in this country, and that they will never do more ill-service to the land than by prosecuting and continuing with this proposal for premium bonds.

§ LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, I think it would be discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, whose views we all respect, if I were to allow his remarks to go absolutely unanswered, and also lest it be thought that the Government representative was not even in his place. On the Committee stage of this Bill, the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury succeeded in making what I then described as a Second Reading speech on the Finance Bill which has not yet been published. On the Report stage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, has succeeded in making a Second Reading speech on a new Betting Bill which has not yet been drafted. I should like him to know that we respect his views, whilst not agreeing with all of them, and when the time comes we shall look forward to listening to him in greater detail. In the meantime, I can assure him that his remarks have nothing whatever to do with the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has had so much difficulty in getting through the House, and which your Lordships may still at this late stage be pleased to see upon its way.