House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Jan 1992

Column 1268

The supporters of national lotteries usually claim that experience in other countries shows that small lotteries have not suffered. Ireland has been mentioned as a country in which small lotteries have thrived following the introduction of a major lottery. In fact, Ireland seems to provide clear evidence that small lotteries have lost out. Last year, a number of leading Irish charities expressed their concern that the national lottery had cut annual sales of traditional charitable lotteries by as much as 50 per cent. In part, that may be due to an unfair balance in the rules governing the two types of lottery--national and local--but it clearly raises the question whether a national lottery here should be accompanied by changes to the existing statutory controls governing small lotteries. For example, should the monetary limits on prizes and proceeds be increased and, if so, by how much? At present, the largest lottery has a maximum single prize of £12,000 and maximum turnover of £180,000. Many other aspects of the conduct of small lotteries, including their frequency, promotion and regulation, would also require study. In some areas, change would require primary legislation to amend the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976.

Mr. Alton : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd : I shall not give way because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I have a bit more to say and I want to limit others as little as possible.

Unless those matters are tackled at the same time as legislation on a national lottery, we shall be in danger of putting some small charitable lotteries at a severe disadvantage. It would be unfair to press ahead without proper study of the consequences for them. I have sought to illustrate that the introduction of a national lottery is a complex matter affecting many aspects of existing primary legislation on gambling. These issues have emerged from the Government's initial study of the implications of a national lottery during the previous Session and no doubt quite a number more would need to be resolved before we could come forward with a Bill which it would be right to put before the House.

As I made clear at the outset, the Government see attractions in the concept of a national lottery and we wish to examine further the issues that it raises. In doing so, it will be important to invite the views of all interested parties, particularly the charities, large and small, and the pools companies. We shall put that work in hand immediately and announce our conclusions as soon as possible. Although I said at the start of my speech that the Government welcome the concept of a national lottery, we must, I emphasise, seek evidence from all those likely to be affected before decisions are made about how best to proceed. The drafting of the Bill has sought skilfully to avoid those issues, but, as I have indicated, they must be resolved first.

However, I have sought to underline the Government's warm interest and our firm intention to take matters forward in the way that will give everyone a chance to put his views and for the important questions to be resolved. Until that work has been completed, the Government cannot give any final commitment about the outcome. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend and the House will agree that the course that I have indicated the Government will now take is the right way of tackling this complex subject. We recognise the need to move quickly, but there must be proper consideration and consultation

Column 1269

first. We owe that much to those who work in the existing gambling industries. We owe it to the good causes that stand to lose, as well as to those that stand to gain from a national lottery, and we owe it to the citizens of this country, for whom a national lottery, if it comes, should not be merely an extension of gambling but, in the words of the Rothschild royal commission,

"a harmless entertainment providing a rare opportunity to improve the quality of British life".

Finally, I commend my hon. and learned Friend, not merely for his excellent speech but for providing the House with the opportunity to concentrate on the question. It will be clear from what I have said, however, that I cannot ask the House to support the Second Reading. However, it will also be clear from what I have said that, as a result of his energy and eloquence, my hon. and learned Friend has greatly added to the momentum of the cause that he is promoting. 1.19 pm

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on doing so well in the ballot and on giving us an opportunity-- whether or not we agree with a national lottery--to express our views in this constructive debate. I thank the Minister for his comments, which I read as being rather cool to the whole thing. I thank him in particular for implying that there will be a need for a considerable amount of work and analysis. That makes sense, and that clarification is welcome.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton has introduced a short Bill which, as he quite rightly said, is an enabling Bill. It gives the Secretary of State the power to decide how some of the highly complex issues surrounding the introduction of a national lottery should be dealt with. In particular, the Secretary of State would be empowered to decide how a national lottery would fit in to the existing gambling structure in the United Kingdom. He would also be empowered to take all the policy decisions to make a national lottery viable. The hon. and learned Member for Burton has introduced a "feel good" Bill. It appears to be based on the question : who would like to spend lots of money on sport, the arts, heritage and everything else? The answer to that must be that we all want to see more money spent on the arts, heritage and other things. Asking that question is easy. We must then ask how that can be achieved. Apart from a few general and obvious points, the Bill ducks the question entirely. As I said in an intervention, no one knows what income would be generated from a national lottery. It would be misleading for the country if any of us suggested what amounts of money might be spent on good causes. We do not know how much will be spent, especially when we bear in mind the fact that the Government's policy of not stimulating demand is still extant.

I do not want to speak for long, as other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. However, it might be useful if I were to outline at the outset the Labour party's position with regard to funding sport and the arts.

We believe that there is a need to review funding arrangements for sport and the arts. In our policy document entitled "Charter for Sport" we stated :

"We will set up a major review of sport finance and sponsorship, levy, betting and taxation to ensure that a fairer proportion of the money taken out of sport goes back into sport."

Column 1270

In another policy document entitled "Arts and the Media : our Cultural Future", we stated in the section on private funding : "We will give serious consideration to the proposal to establish a national lottery for the benefit of the arts. We will set up an inquiry to examine the means by which this could be achieved with the lowest possible administrative costs, whilst safeguarding the existence of established arrangements and employment."

In practice, that means that when we form the Government in the next few months we will carry out a deep-seated review of the funding of sport and the arts and possibly other areas which will also protect the 4,630 jobs on Merseyside, the 730 jobs in Glasgow, the 640 jobs in Cardiff and the 500 jobs in London. The Labour party wants to protect the 6,500 full-time jobs in the football pools companies and the 70,000 to 100,000 part-time jobs-- the

collectors--associated with them. What I have referred to concerns the possible impact on jobs of the introduction of a national lottery. Detailed answers need also to be given to questions regarding the possible loss of nearly a third of a billion pounds of revenue to the Exchequer arising from taxes on football pool stakes. If that were to happen, we would need to ask how the Treasury would be compensated. We also need answers to questions about current funding for the Football Trust, which amounts to more than £30 million per annum and which is vital to the improvement of our football stadiums, as proposed in the Taylor report following the Hillsborough disaster. As a result of information made available to hon. Members, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the piecemeal introduction of a national lottery could prejudice such funding. If so, where will the money come from to compensate for losses? What will be the rules for funding the Football Trust? How can we be sure that the trustees responsible for running the lottery, which essentially is a private system of funding, will be sympathetic to the Football Trust? There is nothing in the Bill which says that they should. My argument for the Football Trust applies equally to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts which receives more than £60 million per annum from the pools.

Those questions are fundamental. The reason why there are no firm answers is that the Bill is a private Member's Bill. That means that there has been no time--I agree with the Minister--for proper consultation on the matter. There is a range of unanswered questions. We do not even know whether a national lottery would be financially viable, as it can be argued that no other country offers the same variety of opportunities for gambling which would be in competition. Even more important, we have not the faintest idea of what tax regime a lottery would work under.

Successive Conservative and Labour Governments have consistently regulated gambling for two reasons--first, to limit gambling to adults and to exclude children, and, secondly, to prevent crime. The House should note that, throughout the rest of Europe, gambling is controlled by Ministers of Finance, rather than as it is in the United Kingdom, where control comes under the Home Office and Home Office Ministers. The reason for that is that we have always looked beyond the fiscal aspects of gambling and, instead, have regulated gambling in order to contain its social impact. A consequence of that consistent approach to regulation is that the United Kingdom has the

Column 1271

lowest incidence of illegal gambling in Europe, in marked contrast to Italy, where gambling is in the firm grip of the Mafia.

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) : Tut, tut, an unjustified slur on a great country.

Mr. Randall : The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is making sounds. He should talk to people at the EC Commission who feel that they cannot get reliable statistics because of that impact.

The major factor in the central control of British gambling is that we should seek only to satisfy unstimulated demand. In practice, that means that the broadcasting media may not be used for advertising and that controls are placed on the number of sales outlets. Experience shows that existing major lotteries require heavy advertising to become viable. This Bill will probably need massive advertising on television and in the press and on radio and the use of direct mailing techniques.

It should be noted that the per capita stake in the United Kingdom is likely to be higher than in most European countries apart from Spain. That is based upon the Minister's own figure of £1.12 per week, which was included in the Library briefing on the Bill. It is reasonable to conclude from the Minister's figures, in both absolute and comparative terms, that the amount of so-called new money available for a national lottery in the United Kingdom could be quite limited. Its viability will depend to a greater extent on persuading punters to place their stakes in the lottery rather than using other gambling opportunities. That could mean that the departure from the existing policy of not stimulating demand would have to be substantial.

An important question that has not been addressed is whether Parliament is now prepared to drop the system of regulation that has been so successful and whether Parliament would accept that stimulating the demand for gambling is acceptable on the ground that the money raised would be used for worthwhile causes. We do not know the answer to that question. The Labour party believes that the country should be properly consulted before any such change in policy is made.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton has tried to bypass the arguments about stimulation of demand by saying :

"After 1992, the Government will almost certainly be unable to stop European lotteries from flooding into Britain ... It would be absurd if British money were to be spent on good causes in Spain, Italy or Germany, but could not be spent to improve the British way of life". The hon. and learned Gentleman is looking bewildered. I am quoting from his article The House Magazine on 13 January. At the moment, that argument is unsustainable. I shall not go into the reasons why I think that, because the Minister's answers have made that point perfectly clear.

Apart from the Minister's comments on the unlikelihood of there being any immediate competition from the EEC as a result of the single market, I suspect that it will not be in the interests of member states to promote competition between national lotteries because punters will always tend to place their stakes with the biggest lotteries because they offer the biggest prizes. Certainly competition could result in a fall in the income to the Exchequer and in the investment made in good causes in

Column 1272

certain member states because one national lottery may be smaller than those of other member states. The biggest national lotteries will always be the most successful.

If there were to be competition between national lotteries across the EEC because of the single market, it is probable that a new British national lottery would not be able to compete with the established biggest lotteries in the EEC entirely because of the size of the prizes. If, for argument's sake, we accepted the hon. and learned Gentleman's assertion that European lotteries would flood into Britain in about 12 months, the business risks associated with a national lottery could be substantial.

I turn briefly to the effect that a national lottery could have on the football pools. Would the pools really be able to survive? If the current system of regulation and taxation were to be retained for the pools, the purpose of which has been to curtail expenditure by the public on gambling, and if a national lottery were free to operate in the way in which the hon. and learned Member for Burton envisages--in a free market--the pools would probably either collapse or be severely damaged. They would be competing in an unfair environment. They would be heavily taxed at 37.5 per cent., whereas a national lottery would be taxed at an appreciably lower rate. In addition, the pools face constraints on advertising which a national lottery would not. It is inconceivable that the football pools could survive such a skew in the competitive environment.

Mr. Ashby rose--

Mr. Randall : I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to give way because other hon. Members wish to speak and I should like to conclude my speech as soon as I can.

I refer now to table 1 of the booklet from the Advisory Forum on Gambling, which I am sure all hon. Members have received. It shows that gross remittances would go from about--

Mr. Lawrence : It is a pools company.

Mr. Randall : Of course it is--

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : The hon. Gentleman did not say that it was.

Mr. Randall : I am quoting the forum. It is for the hon. Lady to know that it has interests in football. I accept that it has. But notwithstanding that-- [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says that we should question the figures

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : I did not. I said-- [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order.

Mr. Randall : It is implicit in what I am saying that we should always question figures because those who produce them may have an interest.

The forum estimates that, if we started the national lottery this year, the gross remittances would fall from £866 million in 1991-92 to about £260 million in 1994-95. The duty to the Exchequer would fall from about a third of a billion pounds to £97.5 million. The donations to sport and the arts would drop considerably from just below £100 million to about £13 million. So the consequences are serious.

Column 1273

I have a letter from Coopers and Lybrand Europe which other hon. Members may have received. I quote from a letter from Mr. Frank McFadden to Littlewoods Pools. It says :

"I have long ago formed the opinion that the introduction of a UK national lottery would effectively kill off the football pools within a period of weeks. This closely follows the pattern with regard to Littlewoods Pools in Belgium which, following the introduction of a national lottery, survived only three weeks.

As you are aware, the UK has the largest gambling and gaming market within the European Community. In addition, however, it demonstrates a high propensity to bet, which is only exceeded by Spain, Greece and Ireland. Such propensity to bet indicates that there is a limited elasticity of demand for additional gambling and gaming products in Britain and, as a result, a successful national lottery would act as a substitute for the football pools."

I shall conclude now because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to hog the time. As I have already said, the Labour party is committed to reviewing the system of and arrangements for funding sport, the arts and other activities. We shall do that when we form the Government in the next few weeks. We also believe that the private Member's Bill mechanism is not appropriate for introducing a national lottery. As the Bill is a private Member's Bill, it lacks depth and has involved little or no consultation. There is no way of assessing the viability of a national lottery at this stage.

We also believe that there are serious risks that the introduction of a national lottery could seriously damage or destroy our successful football pools system, which has great integrity and is held in such high esteem by the British people. That is not to mention the huge contribution that the pools make to the Treasury. Surely the time is ripe for much more thought to be given to the whole matter.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The Standing Order on 10-minute speeches has been lifted, but if every hon. Member present is to be allowed to speak, I must ask for a voluntary restraint of five minutes.

1.37 pm

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : I will certainly abide by your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for the great city of Kingston upon Hull, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I agree with what he said about the effects that a national lottery would have on the pools industry. That is just one reason why I cannot support the Bill. I say that with some regret, because I have the highest personal regard for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).

I have other reasons for not supporting the Bill. First, I have an instinctive suspicion of any commercial enterprise by the state, whether actual or attempted, and a deep instinctive suspicion of a monopoly commercial enterprise by the state. Secondly, I question whether the state should encourage people to gamble. Encouragement there would be, because a national lottery would undoubtedly be widely advertised.

I am also worried about the effect that a national lottery would have on the greyhound racing industry. I make no apology for raising the subject of Walthamstow stadium,

Column 1274

arguably one of the finest greyhound racing stadiums in Britain. I thoroughly recommend it to everyone in the House for a great evening out.

I am not opposed to gambling. That may be something to do with the fact that a few years ago I went to the races and was persuaded to put money on a horse called Dignity of Labour by Worthy Tryer out of Work Ethic. That horse threw its jockey at the first fence, missed the second fence altogether, caused a collision at the third, ran wide at the fourth and finally sauntered in last. So I have not had happy experiences and since then I have kept clear of betting at races.

I shall quote briefly from a letter sent to me by the Betting Office Licensees Association Limited--I suspect a different letter from the one sent to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell)-- which says :

"The purpose of this letter is to inform you of BOLA's concern about the proposed introduction of a national lottery. We believe that the injection of a large-scale lottery into a complex and largely mature market which already offers horse, greyhound and football betting, plus football pools, gaming machines, casinos, bingo and local lotteries, would have a detrimental effect on the existing revenue-yielding betting and gaming activities.

In BOLA's view, most damage would be done to football pool betting, but we would also expect off-course betting turnover on horse and greyhound racing to suffer, as it did in Ireland following the introduction of a national lottery in that country. Thus we would envisage the £1 billion a year generated for the Exchequer by the taxation of betting and gaming being seriously eroded."

Supporters of the Bill state that we must establish a national lottery in Britain because the introduction of the European single market after 1992 will cause a flood of foreign lottery tickets into this country and that has already been debated.

What about the consequences of a lottery for other forms of gambling? On the assumption that a national lottery consisted of a numbers-based Lotto game--probably six from 49--and that it was promoted and protected effectively as a state monopoly, which is the almost universal pattern abroad, it is possible to state with considerable accuracy what would happen to other forms of gambling, especially the British football pools industry. The effect on the fund-raising efforts of charities, sports clubs and other voluntary organisations can also be calculated.

The setting up of a national lottery will have serious consequences for jobs and for sports and the arts.

In conclusion I shall quote from a letter which I recently received from the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which states : "It seems a courtesy to let you know that tomorrow's list" of grants--

"will include a sum of £300,000 awarded to the Waltham Forest Recreation Services at Forest Road, London E17 which I believe to be in your constituency. The purpose of the grant is for structural repairs at the Waltham Forest Pool and Track Leisure Centre, including access facilities for people with disabilities. The Trustees believe you will welcome this contribution to what is happening in Walthamstow."

And so I do. Jam today is better than jam tomorrow.

1.42 pm

Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston) : I have listened carefully to the debate since 9.30 am and with especial care to the promoter of the Bill, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), to hear where the money would come from. He did not tell us. So before he sat down, I

Column 1275

made my only intervention this morning to ask him to tell us where the £3 billion will come from. What will people cease to spend it on in order to buy lottery tickets? Even when faced with a direct question, he did not tell us, but started to talk about figures in Germany and elsewhere. He did not tell us whether £3 billion is sloshing around, unused, in British pockets. That is a crucial question.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton did not answer, because there are only two things that he can say. Either it comes from present gambling or people will cease to spend it on something else, in which case he would have to tell us what--would it be food, mortgages, rents or clothes? He prefers not to answer that question and it has not been answered by any of the supporters of the Bill. It is a crucial question. It is important from both angles. As president of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and as a sponsored Member of USDAW, I am deeply worried about the job implications.

There has been mention of hon. Members being nobbled by the football pools companies. I find that a bit offensive, although in a sense I am nobbled by the work force, because it is important for all hon. Members to be concerned about jobs. As has been established, thousands of jobs are at stake, mostly the jobs of USDAW members, in areas of high unemployment. It is not only the employer who fears for the loss of trade, but the thousands of workers.

It may come as a surprise to some of my hon. Friends when I pay a compliment to the major company involved in football pools on a particular aspect of its policy. Littlewoods has an explicit policy of maintaining employment rather than making ever-higher capital investments. It would rather spend its money on paying wages than on installing machinery to force workers out. There has been no guarantee or even a hint from one of the Bill's sponsors that a national lottery would be run on those lines. Of course it would not and it could not. Littlewoods is efficient in the organisation of its work force. It is not simply a highly capital-intensive trade. That means that it is important as an employer of labour. As has been pointed out, all its workers, too, are paying taxes from which spending on all the needs of the people can be financed. Therefore, I am concerned about jobs.

One of the most outrageous arguments this morning came from the hon. and learned Member for Burton who said that the Bill would improve equality for women. He said with a straight face that the Bill would provide access for women who find filling in the football pools too complicated. Their tiny little brains do not run to that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : My hon. and learned Friend did not.

Several Hon. Members : Yes, he did.

Mrs. Wise : Hansard will show that the promoter said that women find football pools coupons too complicated. I am adding the bit about their tiny little minds.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will the hon. Lady give way ?

Mrs. Wise : No, I am not giving way to the hon. Lady. I have had experience of her before.

When the sponsors talk about the rights and position of women, let them remember that most of the jobs at stake

Column 1276

will be women's jobs. Let them also remember that women in our society have less disposable income than men. Therefore, if the Bill encourages women to spend money on a lottery, it is even more likely to be at the expense of essential spending. Women have less of the £3 billion that is claimed to be sloshing around than anybody else. If the £3 billion comes at the expense of the football pools, it will hit jobs in areas of high unemployment and women's jobs. On the other hand, if it comes from other sorts of spending, which will they be ? There is already a recession in retailing because people do not have money to spend on food, clothing and household goods. If they choose to buy lottery tickets, there will be an even bigger recession in retailing and the other members of USDAW will be affected. Even more people will lose their jobs.

Lewis's, an important department store in my constituency, is likely to close on 1 February, not because it sells shoddy goods--it does not--but because people are short of money. The £3 billion needed to set up the national lottery is just not around.

People are facing the repossession of their homes and they have arrears in their mortgages and their rents. Thousands and thousands of summonses have been issued for poll tax arrears. However, the supporters of the Bill claim that they will get £3 billion of new money for the national lottery. Do they have a private arrangement with the Mint ? That is the only way in which new money could be found ; it would have to be freshly minted for the purpose. People will not receive huge wage increases so that they can contribute to a national lottery. There is not £3 billion available from ordinary people.

I accept that £3 billion could be raised from some sectors of society and I am in favour of them contributing--through taxation. However, they want to be able to say that funding for the sports and the arts can now be met without imposing any extra tax burden on them, the rich. They are looking for an easy way out and that is unacceptable.

The promoter spoke about the advantages of providing sports facilities as a means of preventing crime. The hon. and learned Gentleman painted a gloomy picture of young people with nothing to do. He said how important it was for society that sports halls, playing fields and other facilities should be provided for young people to keep them from delinquency. That is true. He also said that the national health service is important, but that a national lottery would be a strange way in which to finance it. If that is the case, why is it not also a strange way in which to finance all the things that would contribute to keeping down crime and keeping young people from committing acts of vandalism?

The Bill is a bad one. I do not believe that it can be remedied in Committee. I am not persuaded by the argument that it is an enabling Bill. I do not believe that the House should pass Bills that can then go off in all sorts of directions when they are amended in Committee. The promoter should get his Bill right when he introduces it. We do not want to pass Bills that are empty shells ; that is bad legislative practice.

I oppose the Bill from a constitutional view. As a woman I oppose the Bill. As someone concerned about proper public provision I oppose the Bill. As someone with trade union interests I oppose the Bill. I am confident that the House will refrain from giving it a Second Reading.

Column 1277

1.52 pm

Mr. Ken Hargreaves (Hyndburn) : I add my congratulations to those given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on his success in the ballot and on choosing this particular Bill, of which I am pleased to be a sponsor.

My hon. and learned Friend reminded the House that, in Europe, only Britain and Albania have, as yet, not seen the need for the resources that a national lottery would provide. It is hard to understand why when, in all our constituencies, the need for increased resources for sports, the arts and the environment must be obvious.

In my constituency a national lottery could help to provide a new running track for the athletic club and a sports pavilion for Rhyddings county high school, whose playing field is half a mile from the school. It could also provide a lift for the civic theatre, so that the disabled and older people could see the excellent amateur and professional productions that are staged there. In common with other hon. Members, I could continue to list the various needs in my constituency. Those needs must be added to the impressive list of national projects set out by the Sports Council and the Arts Council.

If the Bill were passed it could help to provide many of those facilities. Failure to pass the Bill could lead to those new facilities being established not in Hyndburn or Burton, but in Hamburg and Barcelona. Despite the efforts of Customs officials, tickets for the German, Austrian and Canadian lotteries are being bought in this country. Many of us have received mail shots which say :

"You've been declared eligible to win up to 50 million dollars tax free, lump sum cash, in the official Canadian lottery, plus special bonus prizes too. Just think what you could do with winnings like that."

That is tempting to hon. Members with marginal seats and a general election looming. A magazine that was circulating in this country in December carried a full-page advert for the Austrian national lottery. With the increasing popularity of satellite television, people in this country will have invitations to participate in European lotteries beamed into their homes.

There is no doubt that, by one means or another, foreign lottery tickets will increasingly be bought in this country. We shall be using our money to improve facilities in countries with which we compete in sport.

Any non-United Kingdom scheme that issues promotional material here is breaking the law, but the Home Office says that it cannot prosecute foreign lotteries because they have no staff here. A national lottery will increase jobs--not simply in running the lottery but in printing tickets and in building capital projects funded from the proceeds and in servicing those facilities when they are built.

If the advice of an opinion poll taken in November is followed, tickets for the lottery will be on sale in post offices, thereby helping to preserve jobs that could otherwise be lost in sub-post offices that are facing closure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) reminded us, the Post Office--24 million people use its 20,000 outlets each week--is a superb place to sell lottery tickets. It has integrity and credibility, which will be necessary if we have a national lottery.

I understand the views of the Lotteries Council. It has said that it is not against a national lottery but opposes the Bill because it does not specifically protect its members. Small lotteries have been extremely successful in providing

Column 1278

resources that have enabled many football clubs to survive. It is not unnatural that the Lotteries Council should wish to protect its members. At our last annual general meeting, when we discussed the £10,000 lottery being run by UK Charities Ltd., members said that, far from harming them, the new lottery had generated new interest. I believe that the same would be true with a national lottery. The objections of the Lotteries Council, like those of the pool companies, overlook the threat from European lotteries. Can anyone say with certainty that if we do not have a national lottery the status quo will continue and that foreign lottery tickets will never be available in this country? No one can give us that guarantee, so we take a risk--a risk which we should not take.

I wish the Bill success. I hope that if the calling of the election prevents it from becoming law, the Government will include a proposal for a national lottery in our manifesto.

1.57 pm

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) : I want to explain why I have changed from supporting a national lottery to opposing it. It has been the duty of Labour Back Benchers to try to construct an agenda that leap-frogged Thatcherism rather than being part of a party that merely tried to adapt itself to Government successes after yet another general election failure.

In that context of thinking about the need for a national health service tax and the support that a national lottery could give the national health scheme, I supported that measure. Before the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) says that I am like everybody else who has spoken against the lotteries--a mere spokesman for the pools--let me say that I am critical of Littlewoods. Of course I am mindful of its good employment policies. Many of my constituents work at Littlewoods, but the way in which it has approached the issue in the past few years has been, to be gentle, lethargic rather than looking after the best interests of its members.

I thank the hon. and learned Member for Burton for giving us this opportunity. We are having a dress rehearsal of the real debate that will take place in the next Parliament, when hon. Members who are worried about aspects of a national lottery will have to advance better arguments than some that we have heard this morning. We cannot rely on the shock-horror tactics which state that the whole of English national life will collapse if a national lottery is introduced. The public--the voters--will not believe us. We cannot rely on the arguments against more gambling--thank God we are a country in which most people believe that there should not be a group of people who put their sticky fingers into other people's private lives and dictate how they should behave or spend their money. That argument comes especially badly from the pools industry whose whole income comes from gambling.

Nor can we rely on the argument that it is bad to have a national lottery for sports facilities, for example, when we know that all the income of the pools industry--minus the prizes--goes into the pockets of the promoters. That argument does not stand up.

I am well within my five minutes so I shall tell the House why I have changed my mind. I can assure the House that it is not because in the past couple of years I have been on

Next Section

Home Page