---

Column 1279

the receiving end of a particular campaign. Indeed, if one were trying to ensure that I did not change my mind, I should have to congratulate the organisers of that campaign. I changed my mind for one reason.

I said earlier that I was not a member of the puritan lobby which is against gambling, but I must now modify that statement. I am against one form of gambling--gambling with the jobs of some of my constituents. I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Burton was in danger of talking out the Bill because he spoke for so long, but not more than two minutes of his discourse were spent on the possible job implications.

We do not know for certain what the job implications will be. It is a gamble. The House should not take such a gamble with my constituents' livelihood especially as--as many hon. Members have explained--for many of the families involved it is their only gateway to a normal existence. For that reason--and for that reason alone--I hope that the House will reject the Bill.

2.1 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Many hon. Members have made some good points today. One of the advantages of being called late in the debate is that one does not repeat some arguments which have already been made.

I see the beginnings of something called the "Bottomley" law on detailed explanations. When a Minister gives a detailed reason why something is as it is, one can be fairly sure that the Government are likely to change their mind shortly afterwards. It has happened with such issues as compensation for haemophiliacs who contracted the HIV virus and it certainly happened when one Minister at the Department of Education and Science explained why polytechnics could never be called universities. It appears to be happening in this case. On 13 January my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary--who I thought handled the debate very well--explained that

"Government policy on all gambling, whether betting, gaming or lotteries, reflects two basic principles. The first is that controls are necessary to ensure that it is conducted honestly and fairly. The second principle is that demand for gambling should not be stimulated."--[ Official Report, 13 January 1991 ; Vol. 201, c. 460. ]

It is agreed that net spending on gambling in this country is about £3,000 million to £4,000 million a year. The gross figure is larger, but much of horserace betting is recycled--people stake relatively small sums and get a fair amount of it back, although in the end they lose. Therefore, let us work on the net figure of £3,000 million to £4,000 million a year. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that the Bill would roughly double that amount. It is a major step for the House to take to throw away the principle that gambling should not be stimulated. I accept what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said about job losses, but, in time, that problem will have to be faced whatever happens. I also accept what the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) said about the need for substantial extra resources for particular causes. It is crazy that we have not found a way--whether through the tax system, through hypothecated income in another way or by allowing another form of market to work, or probably a combination of all three--to put cultural

---

Column 1280

centres, sporting facilities, the preservation of our heritage and funding for charities on a higher level than at present. I am not arguing for voluntary giving--whether through gambling, through charitable giving or in any other way because it is always a substitute for state funding.

However, I counsel people who do not seem to have done their homework to remember that the Irish figures quoted in the European survey show that half of the Government funding that went to culture, heritage, sport and other good causes was withdrawn when funding began to come from the lottery. It is important that people do not consider only the good points without considering the bad. I oppose the idea of the House passing the Bill, because some of those considerations have not been talked through. But I hope that one of its results will be that in the country as a whole we shall accept that it is right to produce funds on the scale of £750 million a year for a combination of sporting, cultural and heritage activities. The question is : what is the best way of doing that?

If we believe that the money should come from people's pockets, either through extra taxation or through extra spending of tax-provided funds-- that is a reasonable assumption, and it is reasonable to ask what the best way of providing £750 million is--we could, for example, add an extra 25p to the retail price of cigarettes. That would raise £750 million, but the disadvantage would be that it would put 0.3 per cent. on to the retail prices index, whereas gambling, betting and lotteries are not included in the index.

Such hypothecation is better than the almost non-hypothecation involved in saying, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton does, that we shall raise £3 billion and then give half of it back to some winners. That does not help to do much except to make some people very rich-- although I have no special objection to that. Some of the money will go in expenses and a little bit will go to sports facilities, heritage or conservation.

It is not necessarily rational, economically efficient or even dignified to say that an extra £3 billion should be spent on stimulating gambling if what we really want to do is to raise £750 million a year for causes that we accept are good and reasonable. It would have been nice to have a debate in which we could say, "Do we need £750 million for those causes?", but instead we are faced with a National Lottery Bill.

Paragraph 13.83 of the Rothschild report, on page 231 in the chapter entitled,

"A National Lottery for Good Causes"

says :

"Finally, the whole of this chapter is predicated on the assumption that the Government will not penalise those organizations which benefit from the national lottery by withholding funds which they would otherwise have got, or reducing them if they are already being supported by the general exchequer."

I do not believe that any Government--Labour or Tory, now or in the future- -when deciding how much provision to make for good causes, would ignore the other funding that those causes receive. In any particular year the Government may give permission for extra funds to be raised, but they will not go on doing that.

A table on page 232 of the Rothschild report, to which I referred earlier, shows that the vast bulk of the money raised is likely to come from people who do not support some of the causes to which the proceeds are to be dedicated. I do not believe that majority votes should

---

Column 1281

always be required for good causes. Some are minority interests, but important ones should be imposed on other people by an overwhelming minority. It is not right to say that we should stimulate gambling.

I shall make one of my final points now, so as to allow others to take part in the debate. We have seen a number of examples in which a product banned from being advertised on television is assumed to be all right in news and current affairs coverage, and such coverage is manipulated by certain organisations. One of those examples is provided by the link between motor racing and alcohol. The regulations do not allow alcohol promotion on television to be associated with motor racing. But that did not stop a lager company in effect buying the British grand prix and having it broadcast by a major television channel. So much prominence was given to the name of the lager that--perhaps "scandal" is too strong a word, but it was wrong.

Given that major gambling is prohibited as a subject for television advertising, the House would probably want to give five hours to debating the single question of whether we could cheerfully accept the idea of the draw for million-pound prizes being shown on televison as a way of stimulating demand.

I do not believe that we should say to individuals in this country, "You must not do what I do not approve of." We should say, "Do we want to change the system from one of no stimulation to over stimulation?" The idea of doubling gambling in this country as a result of five-hour debate does not seem the best way in which to get £750 million a year for cultural, sporting and heritage activities. 2.10 pm

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : I declare an interest as an unpaid director of Sheffield Wednesday football club. That is significant because three years ago, 95 people were killed at the Hillsborough ground--not because there was anything wrong with the ground. I do not have time to go into the details. Following those tragic deaths the Government, following Lord Taylor's report, insisted that football grounds had to become all- seater and that the bigger grounds had to comply by 1994.

There was no chance that the industry could find the money without the aid of the football pools, which are paying 70 per cent. towards the cost. It is impossible to build stands, to get planning permission and to begin work in a matter of months. It must take two or three years for that to happen. There have already been strong demonstrations about the cost. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) knows, there were riots at West Ham when the supporters protested that they would have to pay £750 each, not for the price of a season ticket, but even to be able to buy a season ticket.

The Prime Minister is a football supporter. He said that the Government would pay 2.5 per cent. of the tax on the football pools to top up the money that the clubs would get from the Football Trust. When the Tories came into office, the tax on football pools was 40 per cent. They lifted it to 42.5 per cent. To be fair to the Prime Minister, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said that they would give back the 2.5 per cent. to football to improve the grounds.

What will happen if the pools collapse? Where will the money come from to improve the grounds? Will the clubs

---

Column 1282

be left with the bill? They will never be able to pay it, and they will be halfway through building the stands and halfway through the contracts when the money will suddenly dry up, if the Bill is passed. The clubs will find themselves in that position although a Lord Justice has told them that the work must be done and although the police have said that they will not police football grounds unless they are all-seater. That will be devastating for Britain's standing in world football because we shall not be able to stage the 1996 European football championships. The industry will be plunged into a trauma and it will not know the way out.

Conservative Members may say that that will not happen overnight and that there will be a gradual run-down. I do not believe that for a minute. There are 70,000 pools collectors. People no longer send in their pools entries through the post. Instead, the entries are collected by collectors who work on commission, sometimes 25 per cent. and sometimes 15 per cent. The collectors go round every Friday night. If there is a national lottery, they will naturally say to the old ladies who do the pools, "Why don't you try a lottery ticket as well as or instead of the pools?" Many who have done the pools for many years will say, "Why not? I have used birthday dates and door numbers, but they never come up. I will do the national lottery instead." There will quickly be a massive switch and the money that the Government get from tax will dry up.

The Government will have far less money to give for the improvement of football grounds. The pools will not be able to pay the 70 per cent. as has been promised. Those will be the consequences if the Bill is passed. Between now and 1994, all the football clubs will have planned, put out tenders and taken contracts. Manchester City, for example, complained to me that it made an application for the grant last July, but that the Minister for Sport is sitting on it. I do not know why he has not released the cash, because the Government continually complain that clubs are not getting a move on. Football clubs do not know where they stand on all-seater stadiums, which the Government have demanded, on which they have had little help and which will be damaged by the Bill.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) should read what the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I am a member, said about the Horse Race Betting Levy Act 1981. Sharing out the cash from horse racing has been a shambles. Once again, the Home Office has had to step in to sort out who gets what in horse racing between the owners, the trainers, the bookies and everyone else because they can never agree on the share of the cake. That is exactly what will happen with the national lottery.

2.14 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : My fundamental objection to the Bill is that it defines areas of public expenditure that I believe to be very important to the richness and well-being of a society as so marginal that they can be funded outwith general taxation and the normal means of funding things that society regards as important.

I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) about the proposals advanced in the Labour party's sports document. Of course we should look at the money that

---

Column 1283

comes out of sport--and, no doubt, the arts --and give as much of that money as possible back to the sources from which it comes. I also agreed with much of what the Minister said, and I followed his speech with interest. But what is proposed in the Bill is one mega state lottery, with defined areas of expenditure, and that is what I cannot agree with.

Over the past few weeks, and again today, we have heard the familiar arguments. If I hear the tale about Britain and Albania once more, I shall be tempted to go to Tirana to check the facts. There is another side to the coin, even if it is true that the only countries that do not have national lotteries are Britain and Albania. In the absence of a national lottery here, other forms of fund-raising--and lotteries in particular--have developed. That problem--if problem it is--would not be confronted in countries with long-established national lotteries, but in countries such as Ireland where the lotteries are not long-established, exactly the problems that we fear are arising.

The term "small lotteries" is perhaps confusing because some of the so- called small lotteries are very large indeed. I have received two letters of which other hon. Members may also have copies. The example of Tenovus, the cancer charity, is an important one. The charity's letter refers to the fact that the charity has a £3 million income from lotteries and that £1 million of its funds depends upon that. The House must think carefully before taking a step that could contribute--and, in the experience of other countries, would contribute--to wiping out that source of revenue, which is what would happen if that relatively large lottery were subordinated to the great national mega-lottery.

The second letter was from Rangers FC Development Fund Ltd. Anyone who takes even a passing interest in Scottish football knows that Rangers football club has a splendid stadium, funded almost exclusively from two sources--first, the lottery that the club has run for many years and, secondly, the Football Trust, referred to today as a possible source of funding that would be endangered by the process. Mr. Hugh Adam, the director of Rangers, who is responsible for the development fund, writes :

"Indeed, it is now a matter of public knowledge that very few, if any, football clubs take enough money through the gate to exist from that alone. Small lotteries are probably the most important source of off-the-field revenue."

While saying that we are acting in the name of sport, we are threatening on two fronts to remove the funding sources on which football clubs and many other sports and arts organisations now depend. I do not think that we should go into that lightly. I came away from the British Columbia lottery presentation held in the House some months ago with two clear impressions. The first was that, in order for the British Columbia lottery to be the great success that it undoubtedly is--it offers huge prizes--all other lotteries, down to a very low level, had had to disappear to make way for it. That example is relevant. Secondly, as the gentleman who came to speak to us freely admitted, no matter how carefully one defines the causes that are to benefit from a lottery, as soon as it exists representatives of all sorts of other causes immediately come knocking at the door so that, in the end, no cause get as much as it at first expected.

---

Column 1284

I want also to refer to a letter from Dr. Moran of Chase Farm hospital in Enfield, who is the chairman of the National Council on Gambling and the adviser on gambling to the Royal College of Psychiatrists. He raised a point on which I agree with the Minister. There is a difference between a large number of lotteries offering relatively modest prizes, but raising a lot of money for many different causes, and the concept of one huge lottery on which the whole fix depends and the vast prize with all the hullabaloo surrounding it.

The professional view of Dr. Moran should not be taken lightly. He wrote :

"The existing lotteries law prescribes modest levels ; this avoids stimulation and allows the smaller societies to compete with larger ones, when promoting lotteries. In large scale lotteries, the gambling element predominates over that of charitable giving." There is no po-faced moralistic view on the matter. I have nothing against gambling or lotteries. However, the House must consider today, as no doubt it will in future, whether we want to approach the matter in a way that does not wipe out other forms of income for good causes and which does not stimulate gambling, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) sensibly pointed out, in order to return through gambling a relatively small proportion of the money to the people who invest in it.

The scale is enormous. The Bill's sponsors switch between minimising and maximising the scale, depending upon which market they are appealing to. By creating a national lottery of £3 billion, we will be creating something new on a level that is double the existing expenditure in the United Kingdom on the pools and bingo combined. That is an enormous enterprise. I do not believe that that money can appear out of thin air. It will either destroy other lotteries or it will be new money which will be diverted from other forms of social expenditure.

2.21 pm

Mr. John Lee (Pendle) : In the circumstances, I will be very brief. It is well known that I am a long-standing supporter of a national lottery, and I am delighted and proud to be a sponsor of the Bill. As a former Minister responsible for tourism, and as the present chairman of ALVA--the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions--I am well aware of the huge costs of maintaining the fabric of great museums, galleries, cathederals and historic houses.

For example, the British museum and the Tate, which are both ALVA members, require substantial funding. The British museum needs £80 million for conversion and refurbishment of the space that has been vacated by the British Library. The Tate needs £32 million to upgrade 21 galleries and to provide adequate visitor research facilities. Museums in Manchester could spend £20 million, and Merseyside could spend £27 million. Sports facilities are required throughout the country.

The Government and the Exchequer have a responsibility. Recent increases in spending on the arts are welcome. However, the Government must not believe that a lottery will allow them to dodge their obligations. The point that has been emphasised repeatedly today is the gap between what the Treasury under a Government of any political party is likely to contribute and what is actually needed. The difference is vast and that is where a national lottery has a role to play.

---

Column 1285

I had hoped that a national lottery would be announced in the last Budget. However, the pools companies proposed the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and, bluntly, the Treasury fell for that. In the Budget debate on 19 March last year, I described the foundation as mere petty cash compared with what a properly constituted national lottery could produce--

Mr. Lawrence rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put :--

The House divided : Ayes 84, Noes 35.

Division No. 42] [2.25 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Ashby, David

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Bendall, Vivian

Benyon, W.

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Buck, Sir Antony

Burns, Simon

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Cash, William

Cormack, Patrick

Devlin, Tim

Durant, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Farr, Sir John

Fatchett, Derek

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Fishburn, John Dudley

Forman, Nigel

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Gorst, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Gregory, Conal

Ground, Patrick

Hampson, Dr Keith

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Jessel, Toby

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Kilfedder, James

Lawrence, Ivan

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Lord, Michael

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Malins, Humfrey

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Mates, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Mills, Iain

Miscampbell, Norman

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Neubert, Sir Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Page, Richard

Rhodes James, Sir Robert

Rooker, Jeff

Rost, Peter

Sedgemore, Brian

Shelton, Sir William

Sims, Roger

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

---