BETTING BILL IN BRITAIN

Taranaki Daily News, 28 April 1934, Page 7

BETTING BILL IN BRITAIN

MOTION FOR ITS REJECTION CLASS LEGISLATION ALLEGED DEBATE IN HOUSE OF LORDS OBJECTS OF GOVERNMENT By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright. Rec. 7.40 p.m. London, April 26. The Marquess of Londonderry, moving the second reading of the Government’s Betting and Lotteries Bill in the House of Lords said human nature being what it was no Government could put an end to gambling and it would be foolish to attempt it. But the regulation and control of gambling by clear and definite legislation was responsibility no Government, least of all the National Government, had a right to evade. The present law on gambling in many respects was nebulous and anomalous. To reject the present proposals would be to issue a mandate to the Government to enforce the existing law and that would inflict injustice and hardship. The matter had not been approached from the viewpoint of morals or religion as these were matters for individual conscience. The Government was concerned only with social consequences. There was a sharp distinction between an action' which involved interference with individual liberty and an action directed against the organised exploitation of the gambling of the population for private gain. Tire general aim of the Government was to place restrictions on such facilities as could be shown to have serious social consequences. Regarding lotteries the Marquess of Londonderry said he was convinced it would be disastrous to adopt these for the support of hospitals. Unless subscriptions amounted to a very large figure the proceeds would not be a very material factor in hospital finance and it would be calamitous if through adopting such a policy hospitals were lost that benefit of personal service and interest which the present voluntary system achieved.

He cited provisions of the Bill which should go far to discourage the people of Britain from participating in foreign lotteries. One of the most effective of these was the prohibition of newspaper publicity. This proposal was welcomed by nearly every section of the Press. Viscount Bertie of Thame moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that class legislation was interfering with the poor man’s amusement. The Bishop of London (Rt. Rev. A. F. Winnington-Ingram) claimed that greyhound racing was doing much harm and commended the Government’s courage in tackling the problem. Lord Hamilton of Dalzell denied the Bill was class legislation. He welcomed the attempt to stop enormous and unhealthy sweepstakes. If lotteries like the Irish sweepstake were ever permitted in England he hoped they would never be associated with horse races.

The Bishop of Manchester (Rt. Rev. Guy Warman) said greyhound racing was a demoralising influence and led to much betting among women. The Duke of Sutherland claimed that a national sweepstake which the Government licensed and controlled would immensely benefit the Exchequer. The Duke of Atholl ' said the only effective counter to Irish sweepstakes would be a Government-controlled sweep in England. * The debate adjourned.

The Marquess of Londonderry announced the abandonment of the provision which would have made illegal foqtball result forecasting pools. It was stated that 5000 people were employed in the business which had 7,000,000 clients. The post office received an income of £6,000,000 a year from it.