HL Deb 13 April 1965 vol 265 cc354-69

6.53 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jessel.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair]

Clause 1 [Promotion of sweepstakes on horseraces]:

LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (a) and to insert instead: (a) that the sweepstake is promoted and conducted by the body nominated for that purpose by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) of this section, or by the person who has been granted the right to do so by the said body;".

The noble Lord said: I hope it is in order to say how glad we are that the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, who is this Bill's pilot, if not jockey, is fully restored to health and strength.

This Amendment—and I think that this one and No. 11 stand or fall together—stems from opinions expressed during our Second Reading debate by noble Lords opposite, who objected to the idea of a national lottery being run in any way for private profit. I must confess I have some sympathy with that point of view. Perhaps it is not altogether a satisfactory arrangement for Parliament to create special opportunity for private interests to make a profit out of gambling, not because gambling is wrong or immoral but because it is unproductive, it does not help the national interest and is not, therefore, something for which Parliament should provide special opportunities for private enterprise.

I have therefore tabled this Amendment, which would at least enable the body nominated by the Home Secretary itself to conduct the lottery. In that way Parliament would have some sort of control over the profits derived from the lottery and over the way those profits were devoted. The kind of body that I envisage as performing this task is something on the lines of the Horserace Totalisator Board—a body of that kind, which could itself run the lottery. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Airedale.)


First of all, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, very much for his kind words about me; and I would apologise to the House, and especially to those noble Lords who have put down Amendments, for having had to postpone the Committee stage of this Bill.

I confess that I am not attracted by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the body nominated by the Home Secretary should actually run the sweepstake. My idea was that the nominated body should be a sort of watchdog. If the nominated body is going to run the sweepstake, it will need another dog to watch it—probably the Comptroller General, or somebody like that. I am quite unashamedly in favour of a private body's being allowed to run this sweepstake. I think such a body would have a better organisation, they would have more incentive to sell more tickets and they would be prepared to put down more money to do the thing well. On the other hand, if you allowed the nominated body to do it, it would be done in a very lackadaisical manner, and there would be no incentive to make a great success of it. Therefore I resist this Amendment.


I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, in having come safely through the coughing epidemic which has afflicted our racing stables. Although, of course, we all deplore the reason for the postponement of the Committee stage from last Tuesday, it did give some of us who would otherwise have been sitting here in a thin House the opportunity of hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place.

I hope that your Lordships, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will not think me discourteous if I do not, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, speak to his Amendment, but I would respectfully point out to the noble Lord that if it was accepted there would be a need for consequential Amendments to Clause 2. The nominated body would have no power under that clause as it stands at present to make contributions for the racecourse from the receipts of a sweepstake promoted by the nominated body itself, because Clause 2 provides only for such contributions from sums paid to the nominated body by a person granted promotional rights by the nominated body.

I hope, however, it will be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, and to the Committee, if, at this early stage, I am allowed to make the Government's attitude to all the Amendments quite clear. The Committee will recall that during Second Reading I stated the Government's fundamental objections to the Bill and urged your Lordships not to give it a Second Reading. That advice was rejected, but the Government's objections remain. During the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, following comments on the handsome profit left to the sweepstake promoter under the Bill as presented, said that he was prepared to modify that part of the Bill (although not, apparently, to the extent which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asks for), and the noble Lord has now tabled Amendments which, if accepted, would have the effect of limiting the profit to 5 per cent. Your Lordships may be under the impression that it was the size of the profit provided by the Bill for the sweepstake promoter that constituted the core of the Government's objection to the Bill, and that a suitable limitation of the promoter's profits would make the Bill acceptable to the Government. That is not so. As I tried to make clear on Second Reading, the Government objections go much wider and involve fundamental issues of principle which were enunciated by the Royal Commissions of 1932 and 1949—namely, that it is wholly undesirable that the State should either itself directly, or through the ægis of a statutory board, be concerned in the provision of facilities for gambling.

Further, and again in accordance with the view of both Royal Commissions, the Government are convinced that it would be wrong for the State to create a private monopoly by restricting the right to promote a large-scale lottery to any one or to any strictly limited number of organisations. In our view, the Bill infringes both principles: it would involve Government sponsorship of gambling facilities. It would confer special favours on horseracing alone, and it would provide a handsome profit for a commercial promoter. It is not irrelevant to remind your Lordships that in so far as the existing law allows private and other small lotteries, it does so subject to the condition that there is no element of private gain. Obviously there is no possibility that the Bill can be amended in such a way as to render it acceptable. The Government will not therefore be a party to the discussions on the Amendments or to any Divisions which might arise from them. Your Lordships will, I know, acquit me of discourtesy if I do not speak again. But I would say that if the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, or the Committee think I might be able to help on a point of information, and I am in a position to obtain that information, I shall be glad to give it.


I am much obliged to the Minister for giving us Her Majesty's Government's attitude to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, does not favour the Amendment I have moved. I will not press it this evening, particularly because I should like to think about it again in the light of the debate we are going to have on the noble Lord's own Amendment, No. 5, about limitation of the profits that can be made out of the proposed sweepstake. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BROWN moved, in subsection (2)(b), to leave out "twenty-five" and insert "thirty-five" [per cent.]. The noble Lord said: I voted against this Bill on Second Reading, and in broad terms I am not with it. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has sincere and worthy motives in introducing it; but I believe that the award of this monopoly to a particular section of the community in this way is bad in principle. However, there must be some possibility of this Bill's becoming law, and it is because of this that I have put down certain Amendments; and with the Committee's permission I should like to speak to all three of the Amendments which I put down as they all concern the same issue.

I should like to clarify one or two points before I proceed. I want to make it clear that when I refer to the "nominated body" I am referring to the body appointed by the Government to put the sweepstake up for auction; when I refer to "the promoters", I am referring to those who run it. I want to draw attention to the way I treat these figures for the sake of simplicity. I want to regard the expenses of the promoting body as being insignificant. They might, I know, amount to £10,000 or £20,000; but in relation to the whole they are insignificant. I want to point out that if, for example, the total sum realised by sale of tickets is £10 million, if we give 50 per cent. of it as prize money we are properly considering a sum of £5 million, because there must always be some return to those who buy tickets in any sweepstakes. So the "bunce", if I may use so crude a term, is £5 million. This is to be split, under the provisions of this Bill, as to medical research, et cetera, £2½ million; as to local amenities, £¼ million, making a total of £2¾ million.


I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, I think he is wrong in saying £¼ million. As the Bill stands, the other provision would be £150,000.


I am sorry. I do not think it makes any difference to my argument. The balance, of some £2,350,000—I think I am correct in my figures in the light of what the Minister has said —is divided between those who promote this sweepstake and the racing, industry. The exact split of that amount lies in the amount which the promoters have to pay for the right to run the sweepstake. So I end up with these two figures: to charity (I use the term in the broadest sense) there goes £2,650,000, and to the promoters and the racing industry, £2,350,000. It is the balance of these two figures which caused me to put down these Amendments. They are quite wrong. To give a particular body the right under an Act of Parliament to sell sweepstake tickets and undoubtedly, however inadvertently, to create the impression that this is largely in the interests of charity or to maintain Aintree, when in fact the proper proceeds, if I may refer to the half that is left after paying the prize money, are divided in this way, would be quite wrong.

Under the Amendments I propose the figures would instead be approximately £4 million to charity and £1 million to the promoters and the racing industry. If the figure realised from the sale of tickets, instead of being £10 million in total, were £20 million, under the Bill as it stands a sum of approximately £5½ million would go to charity and approximately £4¼ million to the promoters and the racing industry. If my Amendments were considered acceptable to the Committee, the figures would instead be approximately £8 million to charity and £2 million to the promoters and the racing industry.

I do not want to keep the Committee too long this evening but may I make this further point? The Committee may object to my grouping together the sums that go, on the one hand, to the promoters and, on the other, to the racing industry. But I think it is difficult to separate these two because they are both concerned in the racing, industry—for it is an industry. I think we are justified in adding them together and comparing the addition of those sums with the sums that go to charity. The balance of the two amounts, as the Bill now stands, is not right. On these grounds rest the Amendments which I have put forward and which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 18, leave out ("twenty-five") and insert ("thirty-five") [per cent.].—(Lord Brown.)


Although the noble Lord, Lord Brown, voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, I am nevertheless grateful for his now taking an interest in it and putting down what I may call a very sensible Amendment, although I am not going to agree with it. First, I think he is wrong when he says the expenses of the promoter are going to he insignificant. They are not going to be insignificant at all. Second, the amount—


I think I may have used the wrong word. I was referring to the expenses of the nominated body.


The noble Lord said "promoter".


I am sorry. I was referring to the expenses of the nominated body.


That I would quite agree with; but this 22½ per cent. which is floating around under my Bill will have to look after racing and the promoter of the sweepstake, and, in my view, as I said on Second Reading, the promoter will have to give a great deal of that 22½ per cent. back in order to get the franchise, and that is the money which will have to go to racing.

We all have our ideas about what should be the proper balance. It is very difficult to get it right, but I am afraid I must stand by what I call my "carve up". The Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, really do two things; they give a smaller margin to the promoter so that he will have less money to give back to racing when he is competing to obtain the franchise; and the other thing they do is to tip the balance more in favour of the local authorities and against the broader national interest generally. So I am afraid I must resist these Amendments.


I beg to move Amendment No. 3. I have already spoken on it, and will not say more.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 1, leave out ("two and one half") and insert ("five").—(Lord Brown.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD BROWN: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 2, leave out ("£150,000") and insert ("£.300.000").—(Lord Brown.)

On Question, Amendment negatived.


I have probably misunderstood the position, but may I ask whether Amendment No. 2 was accepted, or not? I was under the impression it was not, yet I thought I heard the noble Deputy Chairman say that the Amendment was carried.


I was under that impression, but of course if that is the case it makes a nonsense. We have negatived Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and yet Amendment No. 2 was said to be agreed to. Is it possible to put Amendment No. 2 again?


My impression is that I put the Question in the ordinary way, and there was no reply from the "Contents", and I therefore said that the Not-Contents had it. However, with the Committee's permission, I will put the Question again.


It was on Amendment No. 2 that my hearing was defective. When the Question was put I did not hear the word "Content" from anybody; I thought I heard a faint "Not-Content" and yet I believe the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman said that the Contents had it.

On Question, Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 negatived.

7.14 p.m.

LORD JESSEL moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (d) to insert: ( ) that the profits made by the promoter on each sweepstake shall not exceed five per cent. of the whole proceeds of the sweepstake but if a loss has been made on any previous sweepstake the amount of that loss may be carried forward and the whole or any part thereof set off against the profit made on any subsequent sweepstake. The noble Lord said: At the close of his speech in the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that Her Majesty's Government had been asked to set up machinery empowering the Government to grant, to a private person or persons, what amounts to licence to print money".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 264 (No. 51), col. 328, March 16, 1965.] My reply to that was that competition under open tender to obtain the concession would be so intense that no promoter would make an excessive profit; and just to make sure of this I am now putting it in the Bill.

This Amendment limits the promoter's profit to 5 per cent. of the turnover. It is anticipated that any promoter will make a loss the first year, and probably the second year, so the new subsection will also allow him to carry forward any loss and set it off against the profit allowed him for the subsequent year. But I would ask your Lordships to note that he cannot carry anything forward if he makes a profit in the year, even if it is only a small profit, and less than the 5 per cent. allowed. For example, if he makes only 2 per cent. on the year he cannot carry forward the 3 per cent. difference to set off what is allowed in the following year.

LORD JESSEL moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert: (3) The following provisions shall apply to the last foregoing subsection:—

  1. (a) the whole proceeds of a sweepstake shall be deemed to be the total amount received from the sale of tickets and, if any ticket has been disposed of either without receiving any payment or for a sum which is less than that which it is on sale to the public, it shall be assumed that the full amount has in fact been received;
  2. (b) the profit which under paragraph ( ) of the said subsection it is permissible for the promoter to make shall be calculated as if it were being assessed for income tax under Case 1 of Schedule D;
  3. (c) any profit which may be made by the promoter on a sweepstake in excess of that which is permissible under the said paragraph shall be added to the amount payable under paragraph (b) of the said subsection and treated accordingly."

The noble Lord said: I think it is usual, when selling books of sweepstake tickets, to give the agent one free ticket. If a book of eleven tickets is sold, he gets one free ticket, so if he sells a book of eleven £1 tickets he will send only £10 cash to the promoters. This Amendment, which clarifies Clause 1(3) of the original Bill, lays down that the percentage profit will have to be worked out on a notional figure as if all the tickets had been paid for in cash. This will result in the promoter getting less than would appear at first sight. His percentage on a book of eleven £1 tickets will be based on £11 cash, when in fact only £10 cash will be available on which he can draw his percentage.

With regard to paragraph (b), as I said when speaking earlier in reply to Lord Brown's Amendments, the promoter will have large initial expenses. He will have to provide staff, area offices, printing, advertising and probably a computer, so this Amendment really says that his profit shall be calculated under Case 1 of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1952. This is the standard calculation of tax in respect of any trade carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. Paragraph (c) of the Amendment says that any profit which the promoter makes in excess of the 5 per cent. laid down in my previous Amendment shall go to what I call "the good cause", and that will be in addition to the money given under paragraph (b) of Section 2(1), which is the paragraph which says what shall go back to racing. This will be an additional amount. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Jessel.)

7.20 p.m.

LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection 4(a), after "one horserace" to insert "other than a handicap race". The noble Lord said: I developed in the Second Reading debate the argument in support of this Amendment, and for that reason, and also because it is getting rather late, I will re-state it now as shortly as I can. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, in the Second Reading debate that this is really a Bill (I think his words were) "to save the Grand National". In many ways, the Grand National is a most remarkable race. It is worth over £20,000 and is by far the richest prize in the whole of steeple-chasing. One would therefore suppose that it would attract the best steeplechasers, but it does not, because the owners of the best steeplechasers are loath to watch them struggling round the Grand National course under such a huge weight that it slows the good horse down to the pace of the slowest horse in the race, which, I understand, is what the handicapper seeks to do, so as to try to produce a dead heat. The fact that the handicapper of the Grand National singularly fails, year after year, to produce anything like that result, does not alter the fact that that is what he is trying to do.

On Second Reading, I quoted the racing correspondent of The Times as saying that this year no top horses were taking part in the Grand National. This seems to me to be very unfortunate. I should have thought that what was needed at Aintree Racecourse, if it is the finest steeplechasing course in the world, as we are told it is, is a really valuable race with the best steeplechasers. At present, I believe that the most prized race for the best steeplechasers is the Cheltenham Gold Cup, but that is worth only £8,000 against the more than £20,000 of the Grand National Handicap. This Amendment would enable a valuable non-handicap race to become the subject of the proposed sweepstake.

On Second Reading, the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, who I am rather relieved to see is not in his place this evening, did not, I think, make a speech, but he cross-examined me and elicited from me the information that whereas there is a large field of horses in the Grand National, which makes it a suitable medium for a sweepstake, a championship race has a much smaller field and this makes it not such a satisfactory race on which to base a sweepstake. I see the force of that argument.

Therefore, if this view prevails that a championship race such as I have in mind would not be a suitable medium for the sweepstake, I shall be perfectly willing to withdraw this Amendment. I think it would still be possible, under Clause 2 of the Bill, for the sweepstake to be on the Grand National but for the proceeds to be devoted, not to the Grand National itself, but to providing the prize money for a new championship race. The result of all this would be that the Aintree Racecourse authority would get all sorts of incidental additional revenue—presumably there would be television fees for covering the new championship race, additional gate money from an extra day's racing, additional takings from the Tote and so on. I believe that the Aintree Racecourse authority would easily be able to continue in operation, running the Grand National as it is and also running over the Grand National course this new championship race whose prize money would be provided by the sweepstake. That is what I seek to achieve by means of this Amendment, which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, after ("horserace") insert ("other than a handicap race").—(Lord Airedale.)


I cannot agree with the noble Lord. He said that top horses never take part in the Grand National. That is not so. The Grand National has several times been won by the horse that has won the Cheltenham Gold Cup, so he is not correct in saying that the Grand National is not a race for champions. It is true that the two champion steeplechasers of this year did not run in the Grand National. I do not know why—there may have been a multitude of reasons. We have to remember that the Gold Cup is over 34¼ miles while the Grand National is over 4½, miles. Perhaps the trainers thought that the horses would not stay the 4½ miles. They are comparatively young horses and perhaps their trainers did not want to risk them over the severer fences.

I think that the noble Lord is wrong in trying to detract from the Grand National. He has to remember that the Grand National is the greatest steeplechase in the world and the greatest racing spectacle. Nobody outside this country has heard of the Cheltenham Gold Cup, but everybody in the world has heard of the Grand National. If we had a non-handicap race instead of the Grand National, possibly only half-a-dozen horses would run and the same horses would win the race three or four years in succession, as has happened in the Cheltenham Gold Cup.

I feel that the noble Lord is getting a little mixed up with fiat racing, where all the most valuable races are non-handicap, because the chief object of flat racing is selection for breeding. The horses are extremely young, so that the classic races are all for three-year olds, carrying the same weight and, to a great extent, of the same sex. The two cannot be compared. Flat racing is more of a science. Steeplechasing is not indulged in to select horses for breeding. Steeplechasers are at least three years older than flat race horses. It would be quite hopeless to have the Grand National as a non-handicap race, because people go to see the Grand National in order to see a spectacle. They will not go to see a race with six or seven horses, possibly the same horses every year. Therefore, I cannot support this Amendment.


The purpose of this Amendment seems to be to turn the Grand National into a championship race at level weights. In regard to that, 1 would echo what the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, said when he intervened in the Second Reading debate, that if we do this, it will cease to be the Grand National, which is a race known throughout the world. That is a view which I share. Surely it is the large field and the chance of any horse winning which contributes to the excitement. I am glad to have the support of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who is a racehorse owner. He has rightly pointed out that it just happens that this year the two best steeplechasers were not running in the National. He also pointed out that in the past the Grand National has been won by the winner of the Gold Cup—for example, Golden Miller. So let us remember Golden Miller when we say that the Grand National can never be a championship. I want to preserve the Grand National as it is, and I must resist this Amendment.


I have been interested in the arguments adduced against the Amendment. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, thinks that I was trying to detract from the Grand National. I certainly did not seek to, and I did not think I had given that impression. Then I am told that I am trying to have the Grand National as a non-handicap. When what I said is read in Hansard, after we have had a night's sleep, I think it will be apparent that I was not advancing an argument of that kind. The noble Viscount says that steeplechasing is quite different, and that flat racing is more of a science. I suppose, therefore, that Epsom Downs on Derby Day is a sort of conversazione. I should have thought that the spectacle of both forms of racing is obviously most of the object of the exercise.

I am told by both noble Lords who are against me that the Grand National is indeed a championship race. This is something that I have never been able to understand. If a horse carrying 12 stone 7 lb. is beaten by a neck in the Grand National by a horse carrying 10 stone, which of the two horses is the champion? I should like to pose that question, and perhaps after reflection the noble Viscount may be able to answer it. However, it is getting late, and I do not propose to take the Amendment to a Division. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


With your Lordships' permission, Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 can be taken together. They are drafting Amendments and relate to the new subsection (6) which comes later as Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, after first ("body") insert ("(hereinafter in this Act referred to as 'the nominated body')").—(Lord Jessel.)

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, leave out second ("a") and insert ("either an existing").—(Lord Jessel.)

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("statute") to ("who") in line 32 and insert ("or a body incorporated by order under subsection (6) of this section").—(Lord Jessel.)

LORD JESSEL moved in subsection (5), after "person" to insert: (a) for a term of more than seven or less than five years; and (b)

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is twofold: we thought it best to put maximum and minimum periods of time for the promoter's franchise to run. As I said previously, it is anticipated that, certainly for the first year and probably for the second year, considerable losses will be suffered. Therefore it is only fair that the promoter should have some security of tenure in order to get back his loss and make a reasonable profit, or, if he sees no future in the business, to back out of it gracefully. On the other hand, if in the last few years it is apparent that the promoter is making a great deal of money, at the end of seven years the Home Secretary can put the sweepstake once again up to public tender, for obviously the competition will be extremely severe in order to get into the business, and tenderers would be competing to see how much of their permitted percentage they could afford to give back. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 34, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Jessel.)


I am wondering what happens supposing the promoter is found not to be very satisfactory in his conducting of the sweepstake. Are we, so to speak, landed with him for not less than five years? Is there not some way of getting rid of him in under five years if he is found not to be doing the job very well?


I think that is a good point. Provided he is doing the job well, I feel that he should have the chance of going five years, in order to recoup possible initial losses. Presumably the authority would take good precautions to see that the promoter was financially sound and a person who was likely to be able to stay the course for five years. However, I see the possibility of even the best regulated promoter going wrong, and I should like to think about it.


This Amendment is introduced as a result of some observations made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on Second Reading in regard to Clause 1(5). The idea behind the Amendment is this. It may be that the Home Secretary will find some suitable body incorporated by Statute already in existence; but if he does not, this Amendment gives him power to set up, by order, a suitable body which will be charged with the right to promote a sweepstake. It gives him the chance of doing it by order, without further legislation, which is, I think, much tidier. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 45, at end insert—

  1. ("( ) (a) the Secretary of State may by order provide for the constitution of a body to he charged with the duty of granting the right to promote and conduct either or both the sweepstakes which are or may be authorised under this Act and to perform such other functions as arc by this Act assigned to the nominated body;
  2. (b) an Order made under this section shall provide for the constitution of the body and may make such other provision with regard to the body as the Secretary of State thinks proper;
  3. (c) The power of the Secretary of State to make an Order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  4. (d) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section shall 369 include a power, exercisable in the like manner, to vary or revoke such an order.") —(Lord Jessel.)

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Allocation of proceeds of sweepstake to be devoted to medical research]:


This is a drafting Amendment which follows the new paragraph (3)(c) in Clause 1. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 37 after ("Act") insert ("together with any profit made by the promoter which under Section 1(3)(c) of this Act is to be treated as if it were an amount payable under Section 1(2)(b) of this Act").(Lord Jessel.)

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Return by promoter of authorised sweepstake]:


With your Lordships' permission, I will take Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together. They are consequential on the limitation of the promoter's profit and the provision for dealing with any surplus. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 41, leave out ('and").—(Lord Jessel.)

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 43, at end insert— ("(e) the amount of any profits made by the promoter on the sweepstake; and (f) any amount payable by the promoter under Section 1(3)(c) of this Act.").—(Lord Jessel.)

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.