SWEEPSTAKE

Hokitika Guardian, 14 November 1932, Page 8

SWEEPSTAKE

MOcTEY FDR HOSPITAL'S

ENQUIRY IN BRITAIN

LONDON, September 22. ■Sir Arthur Stanley, president of the British Hospitals, Association, gave evi-dence-before the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting. Hitherto the hospital authorities have used. «*»» united influence against the 1 suggestion of legalising lotteries on behalf of hos-pi-tals, maintaining that a subsidy from a sweepstake would do their fun s more harm than good. Voluntary subscriptions would dwindle, as in tl,e ca'se olt Irish hospitals. S’i r Arthur 1 said that the statement of evidence which he submitted lfa been laid before 72 hospitals ; 52 had replied, and 40" were in favour of the statement. The' voluntary hospitals did not wish that their needs should Be made a pretext for the legalisation of lotteries. On the dth«f hand, they wore rot opposed to : legislation and Would be prepared ,to accept money derived from properly ; legalised. sources.-' He could not help thinking that Parliament would find if difficult to decide agtainst legalisation, having- already gone such a long way in legalising gambling by means of the “tote and the licths ing of bookmakers. He suggested that lotteries and sweepstakes could' best be ' managed for the benefit of the community and with prbpei safeguards 'against fraud by vefeting the’ control of them in a s’tatu- ! torv ‘bo'dyi-A -Board someVvhat oil tlie , lines -of 'the ’B.B'.C. TliW’body 'bor'd |. b e authorised to run or arrange for the ; rurinihg "of-.a r limited number of public--I,Tot"te,Tot"tei l ie.v of sweepstakes, each year. A I percentage of the proceeds should be { set aside 1 a-s a general fund, and grants should be made out 0 f this fund, at the sole discretion of the Board, to national bodies/or those engaged ini- national 1 welfare work, -No grants should b e .made except to' or through a' national organisation. Grants for the voluntary hospitals should be made through the British Hospitals AssoThe- Board should submit ac--1 counts annually to the Home Office. It j should have authority to license lot-' teties such as faffles’and tombolas, in which the prizes were in kind and not •in money. . , pir Arthur paid he felt confident that such block grants could be given to the hospitals without fear of alienating the sympathy, ojf present subscribers arid I . Hie proposals -• 1 - 1 have tlv i merit of keeping in this- country the : I urge ~ sums ; \yhich were now going to .Ireland —sumj. which’ could be well spent on deserving objects at homefPhacticaliy all the ''member® iof tVhe British Hospitals ' Association were ■agreed on this point,. Sir Arthur added. •The- advantage 'of distributing the money through 1 ' hiis association wasthat” it Would.. enable, a general ofi hospital needs to b e made, : 'n the interest ;.of the whom community. Lord- LukOj 'chairman of the British Charities Association, giving evidence, said that if lotteries were to be legalised ohel'chnid not be sure of the j .proceed^ *yea^ (( by year,r-'as' one could of' the income-now derived from 5 • voluntAiry• subscriptions." The question whether J cries' pbloiild be authoriised 'kfroufd • be considered on its own ‘arid,«<yt oo" fused with the needs- of the ho'sptials. If ; the. conclusion: was-reach-ed -that lotteries were desirable; they had better be run by the State as method of voluntary taxation 1 ' for th* benefit‘of th e national revenue. ' ‘

NEWSPAPER COMMENT

"The support of at least a decisive majority or tile British Hospitals’ Association 'Council tor tins scheme will* satisfy- the public that it is on a sound' basis,”;- comments the ‘’Daily Telegraph.” “There will be a general .satisfaction that we nave at last’" before us a 'practical plan for turning' t’d 1 the needs of our own people -that- million arid a half-a year which -we fiafve*" be'etasquandering as a subscription to tliehospital services of the Irish Free” Stae. This is- a v form of -extravagance-' v rich We cannot afford to continue.

“How much longer can we-afford to adjuri a levy on that general zest for' eweepistat!eg' which, cannot biyproyent-ea its gratification?” *• “The verdict of the 'hospitals,” says •the ''“Moming -Pest,” is neither decisive u’or* enthusiastic, as fdr' as it goes the r-elojctant assent is no doubt forced r - by the precariouswees of these '.hard times and by the existence of the ■lrish sweepstake. . . Whsp it cdmds 'to creating a public authority, “something on the limes of th e 8.8.C-’ to manage* -lotteries and -sweepstakes, we •‘are -harassed with dofebt 4 - memories.' Our recollection is that the .sweepstakes and lotteries ‘fejl 1 1 into great disrepute in t-his* country by reason of the abuse.? which followed in their train. We have-, no doubt, that if the Board were to cons T-st of theArchbishop of Canterbury, the headmaster of Eton, the master of Bailiol,. the governor of the Bank of England, and people of iha-fc sort, this temptation would be resisted. But it would not be easy. ‘Th e flesh is bruckle, the' fiend is slee.’ ”