BAN ON LOTTERIES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20291, 28 April 1934, Page 11

BAN ON LOTTERIES.

Debate in Loiyls on Control of Gambling. HUMAN NATURE BLAMED. United Pres. Asen. — By Electrlo Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, April 26. The Marquess of Londonderry, when moving the second reading of the Governments Betting and Lotteries Bill, in the House of Lords, said: “Human nature being what it is, no government could put an end to gambling, and it would be too foolish to attempt it. The regulation and control of gambling by clear and definite legislation, however, is a responsibility that no government, least of all a national government, has the right to evade.” The present law on gambling continued Lord Londonderry was in many respects 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 matters were for the individual conscience. The Government was concerned only with social consequences and there was a sharp distinction between action which involved interference with individual liberty and action directed against the organised exploitation of the gambling of the population for private gain. The general aim of the Government, he said, was to place restrictions on such facilities as could be shown to have serious social consequences. Regarding lotteries, Lord Londonderry said he was quite convinced that it would be disastrous to adopt these for the support of hospitals. Unless subscriptions to lotteries 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, the hospitals were to lose that benefit of personal service and interest which the present voluntary system achieved. He cited the 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, a proposal which was welcomed by nearly every section of the Press. Lord Bertie of Thame moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that it was class legislation and would interfere with the poor man’s amusement. The Bishop of London claimed that greyhound racing was doing much harm, and commended the Government’s courage in tackling the problem. Lord Hamilton of Dalzell denied that the Bill was class legislation. He welcomed the attempt to stop the enormous and unhealthy sweepstakes. If lotteries like the Irish Sweepstake were ever permitted in England, he said, he hoped that they would never be associated with horse races. The Bishop of Manchester said that greyhound racing was a demoralising influence which led to much betting among women. The Duke of Sutherland claimed that a national sweepstake which the Government licensed and controlled would be of immense benefit to the exchequer. The Duke of Atboll said that the only effective counter to the Irish sweepstakes would be a Governmentcontrolled sweep in England. The debate was adjourned. Lqrd Londonderry announced the abandonment of the provision which would have made illegal football result forecasting pools. It was stated that 5000 persons were employed in the business, which had 7,000,000 clients, while the Post Office received an income of £6,000,000 a year from it.