HL Deb 14 July 1975 vol 362 cc1004-13

2.52 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, I do not suppose that any of your Lordships will disagree if I surmise that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is fairly happy that this Bill has been steered safely into port in its present, almost totally unamended, form. This has been a largely non-Party measure, in the sense that noble Lords on all sides of the House expressed very considerable anxieties over certain portions of it. It is perhaps unfortunate that very few of those anxieties were resolved—or resolved in a way which could be satisfactory other than to the noble Lord and his most ardent supporters. When my noble friend Lord Cowley dilated upon the Second Reading of the Bill, he suggested that the Bill fell fairly smartly between two stools, in that it did not provide an inducement for any large lotteries in the future and, at the same time, did not provide more than a certain inducement for societies and local authorities; certainly for societies which previously enjoyed a very limited ability to promote lotteries for charitable purposes.

It is perhaps right to say that, by reason of the procedure which your Lordships adopted over the consideration of the Bill—certainly when it came back to us on the Floor of the House on Report—it was totally incomprehensible to almost any noble Lord who did not peruse various portions of the Bill as they were printed, or who had not served on the Public Bill Committee. It may not be quite in order to say very much about this form of procedure, but noble Lords may agree that for the future it is something which the House will have to look at very carefully indeed, if Public Bill Committees are to become what I might call the order of the day for the consideration of Bills of this nature. It may well be that when a Bill has a non-Party flavour, as this one had, the Public Bill Committee can usefully examine it and pass on its deliberations in a form which would be comprehensible to the House, and indeed assist its further deliberations. But if what transpired in regard to this Bill transpires again, then I venture to suggest that some of it may be regarded as a waste of time.

One regrets that the Government did not see fit to extend some of the maxima. One regrets—or, at least, I personally regret—that the Government refused to consider the idea that a local authority could in certain cases combine with a society and promote joint lotteries. One regrets even more that the Government refused to entertain the idea that in proper cases local authorities themselves might combine to promote joint lotteries—here I say for the benefit of any noble Lord who may be in any doubt—within the maximum laid down by the Bill as amended on Report.

I say no more about the maxima, my Lords, but I merely wish to emphasise once again that Section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 apparently gives local authorities the power to combine in this manner, and up to the moment of my speaking we have not heard whether that is wrong. If it is right, the Secretary of State could in due course publish regulations and certain of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead—who I regret to note is not in his place this afternoon—could be met.

My Lords, I hope that the Government will give further reasonably urgent—I was going to say anxious—consideration to the question of larger lotteries. We shall need to have legislation in this House on the subject of gaming by next year because, as noble Lords will know, the Pool Competitions Act 1971 runs out. Those of us who have come rather reluctantly to the idea that local authorities should be empowered to promote lotteries would be much happier—and here the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was persistent, and, if I may say so, right, in his demands that there should be a thorough-going review of the whole subject of larger lotteries and, indeed, large scale gambling—if the Government were to see fit, as I hope they will, to extend the whole area in which gaming can take place on a large scale.

I do not myself—and here I am against the noble Lord, Lord Wigg—think that it should necessarily be at the expense of the pools promoters. But I believe that there must in future be some greater sense of logic and fairness in the way in which some apparently very large organisations are not allowed to take full advantage of the relaxation of the gaming laws, while smaller ones are allowed more than their share.

The final matter to which I refer is concerned with the regulations under Clause 10. A great deal of anxiety was expressed by noble Lords as to the circumstances in which lotteries could take place in the future; much more especially the sort of regulations that the Secretary of State will publish, and the kind of considerations which he will lay down in regard to such matters as the dissemination of lottery tickets and the age of people who can buy and sell them. I have to say that I am extremely pleased that your Lordships reinforced the opinion of the Public Bill Committee that these regulations must be published before the Bill comes into force, and that they should be considered by your Lordships and by another place in the form of an Affirmative Resolution. I hope—and I cannot say more than that—that this wise precaution, as I think it is, will be accepted by the Government in another place and that the Bill will in due course become an Act in its present state.

2.58 p.m.

Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY

My Lords, quite apart from other considerations, I think that this Bill is now singularly ill-timed. At the present moment the Government are asking local authorities to curb their expenditure and to make smaller demands upon the resources of the country; yet at this time we choose to open up a new avenue for raising money for local authority purposes. I think this is wrong. I believe it to be wrong in principle.

When the predecessor of this Bill was before this House last year, as a Private Member's Bill from another place, it was rejected on Second Reading. The Bill then lapsed, and now this Bill is put forward as a Government measure. By clothing it in rather more agreeable garments, an attempt is made to make it more acceptable to the House. But I still object in principle to giving public bodies, and especially local authorities, power to run lotteries for public purposes. I think that local authorities which need money for expenditure within their statutory powers should go to the citizens for it in the ordinary way, so that people know what they are asked to do, know what they will have to pay for it and know the purpose of the expenditure.

I do not think it is desirable, especially at this time, to extend this form of raising money from the public. I believe that gambling in this country generally is an evil; there is far too much of it, and to extend it is open to the gravest objection. If charities and societies wish to have their own means of raising money put on a more orderly and satisfactory basis, as I believe they do or, at least, they should, then let us have a Bill which deals with that; but let us not mix it up with the local authorities. Already some charities are concealing from the public the ways and means they adopt for raising money. I think it should be required of charitable and other bodies to be honest with the people and with their supporters as to how they are raising their money. I have noticed in the accounts of some charities—and I will not particularise—a deliberate concealment of the means of raising money. They have not disclosed that the money comes from football pools; they give it a more acceptable and innocuous title.

These, I believe, are weaknesses in the existing situation which should be remedied. If charities and societies are to be given a firmer base for raising money in this way, then some conditions should be attached to their being allowed to do so. I leave them aside and confine my objection to including local authorities in the power to hold lotteries. There was a vote when we last considered this matter as a new Bill. I hope that noble Lords who then objected in principle to what is proposed now will join with others in voting against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL

My Lords, I am provoked by the noble Lord in his reference to the fact that local authorities should not be allowed to run lotteries but should go to the ratepayers for the money. We are in a situation in which Her Majestys' Government tell the local authorities that they must not raise the rates by more than x and impose policies which are impossible to carry out unless the rates are raised by a great deal more than x. I do not have any views on the subject of lotteries. I never gamble, except at golf; and that is purely to get some tax-free money. But I am concerned with the situation in which local authorities have imposed upon them policies of Central Government to be carried out without adjustment; in the certain knowledge that the resources available to the local authorities are not adequate to carry out these policies.

3.5 p.m.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, joined with me a year ago in securing the rejection of the original Private Member's Bill; so I must be gracious in making reference to what he has got to say. I would start by saying: "Be of good cheer! The one thing that is absolutely certain is that when this Bill, as at present drafted, gets on to the Statute Book it is not going to raise much more for the local authorities than a couple of threepenny bits with holes in them". What the Government have done is to accept a legacy from the previous Administration. There was a Private Member's Bill, which did not ease their task for them; and they were compelled to do something about it. I would refer to the one point of difference between the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and myself. He suggested that I wanted to set about the pools promoters. That is quite untrue. What I want is that we and the House of Commons should face up to the logic which we all have to face up to that arises from the inter-Departmental Committee Report which points out and stresses that we have got ourselves into the invidious position of imposing a ceiling on bingo and no ceiling on pools betting. Large dividends are essential to keep the pools betting going.

Therefore I am not attacking anything. I am pointing out the facts of the situation. I am quite prepared to let this Bill go through and to give it my vote, so far as that is of any importance: but I would ask the Government one question as specifically as I can. I hold the view strongly—I have said this on every occasion and I repeat it today—that before legislation, before the Government make up their mind, they should inquire into this problem in depth.

In my judgment, it should be done through the medium of a Select Committee. They should use the example we worked out on the Army Act over 20 years ago and have alongside it an official committee looking into the technical questions. I advocate that because I ant sure that the mandarins in Whitehall do not like Select Committees, for it means that the Permanent Secretaries lose control of what is going to happen, because they cannot control a Select Committee. But they can control Royal Commissions. They select the chairmen, and who are on it and they put in every fuddyduddy in the land—which is a way of postponing a decision for another 10 years.

I would again remind the House that in 1964 a Labour Government—and they got little credit for it—against the opposition of the Conservative Party tackled the problem, following the steps taken by Lord Butler and as a result revenue now benefits to the extent of £250 million a year where it was only £33 million. At the same time they dealt with major social problems because they faced up to them.

I ask the Government—and I am not asking the Minister to say today that he will do this or that—whether I can get an undertaking. Before they take ally decision about future steps in relation to gambling—and, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said, they must do so, because the Pools Competition Act expires—will they come to this House and to the House of Commons and consult us before choosing the vehicle or the method and before starting on the terms of reference? If they do what they did in the past and what I suspect they are going to do again, the Government being very busy and leaving the matter to the Permanent Secretaries, we are going to have another mess. As a result, large sums of revenue which could be obtained will not be obtained and we drift into a position where radical steps must be taken because we are on the brink of social evil.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, deplores gambling and overlooks the fact that it has rather a respectable back- ground; because there are very few local Labour Parties in the country able to balance their accounts if they do not run draws or some kind of football pools. I hope I shall not be expelled from the Party for saying that; but it is a fact, and I do not like humbug. We all gamble in some form, even the Archbishop of Canterbury. He may not gamble like others; he may not bet. But we all in life have to take chances. We must accept—whether we like it or not, and it is not our personal views or predilections—that the overwhelming majority of our fellow countrymen like having a bet. Some of them bet more than others. Some like football pools. If ever any Government were foolish enough to attempt to suppress it, they would run into trouble. I have nailed my colours to the mast for 20-odd years. I believe in control. I reject suppression; but I believe in control in the light of knowledge. While I am prepared to vote for this Bill, I think I am being reasonable in asking the Minister whether he will give us an assurance that the Government will, first, decide to have an inquiry and, secondly, before deciding the form the inquiry takes and the terms of reference, consult both Houses.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

My Lords, I find myself in considerable agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said. I think this is a silly and inadequate Bill, but neither silly enough nor inadequate enough to vote against it. We would reject a lot of measures if we could not support the silly and inadequate. I do not agree with the noble Lord in repudiating the suggestion that one would not wish to get at the pools promoters. Personally I would love to get at them. I certainly regard that as the most unworthy of all the accesses to great wealth. I personally believe that the only really worthwhile measure would be one nationalising gambling. Nationalisation generally means you get less at a higher price. That, surely, is exactly what we want with gambling and tobacco, and therefore gambling and tobacco are my two top priorities for nationalisation.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that it would be wrong to stop gambling and the smoking of tobacco. There are things which we all do, but of which we all know it would be better if we did less, and gambling and tobacco are surely among those. This seems to be an admirable case for nationalisation. I have always believed that the idea that you can have a laissez faire economy run by market forces is tribal nonsense. If we are under the delusion that the State effectively manages business in detail, we should inquire at the Post Office. It does not work. Surely here is something admittedly wrong, something which one does not want to stop altogether, and which should therefore be brought into national charge. Let gambling and tobacco be on top of the list for nationalisation. I do not often disagree with my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I know very few men with whom I have agreed with so much and on so many things. But on this particular issue I regret that I shall find myself in the other Lobby.

3.13 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, if I may reply briefly to the points which have been made during the debate, I am afraid I must start by disagreeing with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, when he said that the form in which the Bill emerged from the Public Bill Committee was in some way an argument against referring measures of this sort to a Committee. One has to accept the fact that Committees of this House or, indeed, even more so of another place, often find themselves in a situation where they can pass clauses or Amendments which are in themselves contradictory. That is in fact the situation which resulted from two votes on the central issue of this Bill in the Public Bill Committee. I agree that the form of words was unsatisfactory but, unlike the noble Earl, I found the ultimate decision of your Lordships on the matter, when put to the House as a whole, was eminently satisfactory.

The central issue of this Bill—and this was touched on in another contribution this afternoon—was the maximum size of lotteries permitted, first of all to local authorities, and secondly to voluntary organisations. The Government have a clear position on this matter. There was a discussion and debate both in Committee and on the Floor of the House and, by a sizeable majority, the House decided that it was right to have a clear limitation on the size of these lotteries. I am sure that that was the right decision. If we had taken any other view it would have been profoundly damaging to the cause of many voluntary organisations in this country. Their position would have been gravely weakened if we had accepted the advice pressed upon us in the Amendments. I must make it clear that there is one feature of the Bill which at the moment is not satisfactory so far as the Government are concerned; that is, not surprisingly, the point which the noble Earl. Lord Mansfield, regarded as the most virtuous part of the Bill, which is Clause 18. I am afraid that in its present form this is unacceptable to the Government, and the Government will do their best to convince another place to take a certain view of that matter.

If I may briefly touch upon the other contributions made, my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby referred to the previous Bill sponsored by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, as the predecessor of this Bill. I do not think many other people would take that view. Certainly my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead would not take that view because, had he been in your Lordships' House at the time, I suspect that he would have been a vehement supporter of the Bill proposed last summer by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. He found himself in strong agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on the central question of this Bill, which was the maximum size of the lottery.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, played a major role in the deliberations of the Public Bill Committee. He asked on this occasion, as he did during the proceedings of the Public Bill Committee, for an inquiry in depth into this problem before we ventured on a future occasion into this particular field of policy. He kindly indicated that he was not asking this afternoon for a Government announcement that we were going to appoint a Select Committee, or whatever it may be. The noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that it would not be within my authority to make such an announcement. I will certainly draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary both what the noble Lord said during several stages of the Public Bill Committee and again this afternoon.

My Lords, I close by saying that this is a modest measure; I think I would carry most people with me in that description so far as this Bill is concerned. But it is a useful measure both in terms of many voluntary organisations which at the moment are encountering the most severe troubles simply to stay alive, and also it is valuable to some of the smaller local authorities. I should like to thank, on your Lordships' behalf, the members of the Public Bill Committee, including the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. We found ourselves in disagreement on a number of occasions but, nevertheless, it was a valuable experiment so far as your Lordships' House were concerned in discussing this Bill in a Public Bill Committee. May I express my thanks to all those who made a contribution to the deliberations of that Committee.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, I am obliged to him for what he said and for going so far as he has gone. But I wonder whether he could go further. Before we rise for the Summer Recess, would he give the House an assurance that he will consult his right honourable friend and come to the House and give the assurance that I have asked for today, or give a definitive assurance as to the form of inquiry this matter could take?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I will give my noble friend the guarantee that I will consult my right honourable friend before the Recess. I would be foolish if I were to say this afternoon that I would be in a position to make a definitive policy announcement before the Recess.

On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.