House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Apr 1993

Mr. Maxton : I shall be brief. I wish to respond to the comments made by the former Minister for the Arts, the right hon. Member for Mid- Sussex (Mr. Renton), about

Column 970

the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). The right hon. Gentleman kept referring to spending money on social security. Of course that is not what my hon. Friend meant.

Some Opposition Members are worried that the spending of the money raised by the national lottery will be focused on London and on large, prestige projects. As my hon. Friend said, such projects benefit a few relatively wealthy people. We are worried, first, that the money will not be distributed throughout the country to provide access to the arts and sport to all people, wherever they may live in the United Kingdom ; and secondly, that, even where the money is spent outside London, it will be spent on prestige projects which do not necessarily benefit the average person who buys the lottery ticket.

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) : Is the hon. Gentleman making the case that per capita public spending north and south of the border should be the same? If so, Scots would suffer from his suggestion.

Mr. Maxton : The hon. Gentleman was at one time a junior Minister at the Scottish Office, but because he was stupid enough to introduce the poll tax, he lost his seat. If he had listened carefully, he would not have heard me mention Scotland or England once. I was not talking about the differences between Scotland and England. I was talking about outside London and inside London. That includes Manchester, Birmingham, Oldham and many places which ought to receive their fair share of the money spent by the ordinary people who buy lottery tickets throughout the United Kingdom. That is the point which I made and which the hon. Gentleman, deliberately or otherwise, misinterpreted.

I was not a member of the Committee. I will not apologise to the House for taking part in the debate on Report. It may now be the custom that only Committee members take part in debates on Report. The Report stage was originally designed specifically so that Members of Parliament other than those who served on the Committee could take part in the debate.

Mr. Key : What an interesting debate it has been. I was certainly delighted that several hon. Members from both sides of the House spoke who did not take part in the proceedings in Standing Committee.

The speech of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) resembled a speech which might have introduced amendment No. 195, which we are not to debate. However, I understand why he felt it necessary to discuss the point and raise the issue of how the money will be distributed.

It is important to make it clear, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so, that the way in which the mechanism of the national lottery has been constructed will ensure not only geographical distribution across all interests but the distribution of large or small sums of money. The great advantage of our system--which is the envy of most national lotteries around the world--is that there are separate mechanisms for the distribution and collection of the money. Unlike most national lotteries, the money will not go into the coffers of the Treasury but will be distributed by boards and committees consisting of people and organisations who have the confidence of the recipient sectors. Therefore, I reject those arguments.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is absolutely right to react with horror to the

Column 971

amendment and the proposition it contained. It is not intended to substitute national lottery money for main programme spending, whether on social services, the health service, sport or anything else. That has been made absolutely clear.

The points that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made were rehearsed at length in Committee, but they are none the worse for that. It is important that people recognise that important projects like the Manchester Olympic bid may well be eligible for applications to the Sports Council lottery committee, but it certainly will not be up to any Minister or the Millenium Commission to decide whether that project be in receipt of those sums. The Government new clauses were promised in Committee, and they will ensure that all the distributing bodies will produce accounts and reports on the use of lottery funds separate from their other reports and accounts. The reports dealing with lottery funds will be made available to Parliament. The Government amendments are consequential upon the provisions in new clauses 7 and 8. The Millenium Commission is not covered by those new clauses. Although the Secretary of State will be a member of the Commission--and he may be its chairman--its report and accounts will be submitted directly to Parliament under clauses 38 and 39 and not to the Secretary of State. The report of the Charities Board will be covered by new clause 7, and consequential upon that clause will be the removal of clause 34.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : The Opposition Members who referred to the commission should note clause 39(3) states :

"Copies of the statement shall be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General".

A lot of people will keep a beady eye on that fund, so I cannot understand why Opposition Members should be so concerned.

Mr. Key : Neither can I. My hon. Friend is right to point that out.

The Charities Board will receive funds from the Secretary of State at first to cover start-up costs. Its accounts should include the use of that money, and for that reason clause 35 remains.

Government amendments Nos. 70 and 71 ensure that the definition of "financial year" covers anybody named under clause 21, whether now or in the future. Amendment No. 26, tabled by the Opposition, is intended to achieve the same end as the new clauses. I believe--and I hope that I have convinced the House--that that amendment is not therefore necessary.

Mr. Pendry : May I say to the Minister that I was surprised that he agreed--

Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman requires the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Pendry : I understand. With the leave of the House I shall reply to the debate.

I was surprised that the Minister agreed with the right hon. Member for Mid -Sussex (Mr. Renton), because his speech reminded me of what my economics tutor used to say to me : "Answer the question I asked, not the one you wish I had asked." I never made the speech to which he has

Column 972

referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has answered all the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, so I will not go over them.

The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said that the lottery had nothing to do with taxation, but he should talk to the charities, the Sports Council and the Arts Council about the 12 per cent. tax yield that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed upon the lottery. It certainly is about taxation as far as they are concerned. I do not want to push our amendment to a Division. I think that the Minister, in a more reflective mood--and certainly those in another place--might pick up the points I have made more intelligently than some Conservatives have today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

Accounts of distributing bodies other than Charities Board and Millennium Commission

.-(1) A body shall keep proper accounts in respect of any money paid to it under section 22 and proper records in relation to the accounts.

(2) A body shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year in which it was paid any money under section 22 or distributed or applied any money under section 23.

(3) The statement shall comply with any directions that may be given by the Secretary of State as to the information to be contained in such a statement, the manner in which such information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which such a statement is to be prepared.

(4) Copies of the statement shall be sent to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates as the Secretary of State may direct.

(5) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on the statement and shall lay copies of the statement and of his report before Parliament.

(6) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this section without the Treasury's approval.

(7) This section does not apply to the National Lottery Charities Board or to the Millennium Commission.'.-- [Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

New clause 11

Private lotteries

. For section 4(1) of the 1976 Act (private lotteries) there shall be substituted--

"(1) In this Act "private lottery" means a lottery in Great Britain which is promoted--

(a) for members of one society established and conducted for purposes not connected with gaming, betting or lotteries ; (

(b) for persons all of whom work on the same premises ; or (

(c) for persons all of whom reside on the same premises, and which satisfies the conditions in subsections (1A) and (1B) below.

(1A) The lottery must be promoted by persons each of whom-- (

(a) is one of the persons for whom the lottery is promoted ; and (

(b) in the case of a lottery promoted for the members of a society, is authorised in writing by the governing body of the society to promote the lottery.

(1B) The sale of tickets or chances in the lottery must be confined--

Column 973

( (a

(to the persons for whom the lottery is promoted ; and) (b

(in the case of a lottery promoted for the members of a society, to any other persons on the society's premises." '.-- [Mr. Peter Lloyd.] ) Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 192.

Mr. Lloyd : In Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) argued persuasively that where a society was holding a private lottery on its own premises any guests present should be allowed to buy tickets in the same way as they can join in a game of bingo or use gaming machines. I agreed to introduce Government amendments to achieve that, and this is what new clause 11 and amendment No. 192 do.

4.15 pm

Mr. Pendry : I agree with the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen was very persuasive in Committee. She made sure that we all recognised the nonsense of the law as it stood and that in this particular area many of us flout the law ourselves almost every week of the year in the clubs that we frequent--Labour clubs in our case, of course. So we certainly accept the Minister's response in meeting the particular point that my hon. Friend made.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy (Liverpool, Broadgreen) : I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for the courteous way in which they have referred to the contribution that I made on this point. I thank the Minister also for listening to the arguments that were put and for accepting and incorporating them in the Bill. On behalf of the 6 million members of the Club and Institute Union and 10 million members of private clubs, some of whom I see here today, I wish to say thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12

Frequency of lotteries

. For section 10 of the 1976 Act there shall be substituted-- "Frequency of lotteries. 10.--(1) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe

(a) the maximum number of lotteries that a society or local authority may promote under section 5 or 6 above in any period of twelve months ; and

(b) the minimum number of days that must elapse between the dates of any two lotteries promoted under section 5 or 6 above on behalf of the same society or by the same local authority.

(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make different provision for different cases or circumstances." '.-- [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following : Government amendment No. 166.

Column 974

Amendment No. 18, in clause 45, page 17, line 39, at end insert ; but nothing in this section shall apply to a registered charity or non-profit making organisation in respect of any lottery or lotteries which have been in operation for more than one year before the passing of this Act.'.

Government amendment No. 190.

Mr. Lloyd : This new clause removes existing controls on the number and frequency of society and local authority lotteries. It responds to the many representations that I have received, as have, no doubt, many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, from football clubs and others about the effect of a provision in schedule 7 to the Bill designed to stop the practice of multiple registration. This arises where an organisation creates two or more separate societies, commonly operating from the same premises and with the same personnel, in order to circumvent the monetary limits on turnover or, once the Bill comes into force, to escape from Gaming Board registration. I realise that, in order to maximise turnover, many football clubs and other organisations have been running 70 or 80 or more different lotteries a year. As the law stands, a society may only promote 52 lotteries in a 12-month period--that is, one a week. Organisations evade this restriction by registering perhaps three different societies--one to run a weekly draw lottery, another to run a monthly scratch card lottery, and a third, say, to run a large Christmas draw.

It is our aim, in the interests of fairer and more honest and effective regulation, to ensure that organisations register only the one society, but we do not want them to lose income as a result of limiting them to 52 lotteries a year. So, provided an organisation is operating within the £5 million new annual limit laid down in clause 46 of the Bill, I see no reason why it should be subject to an arbitrary limit on the number of lotteries that it may promote. If a football club decides that promoting 70 lotteries a year will maximise its income from this source, then so be it. That is a decision which ought sensibly to be left to the promoters of society and local authority lotteries. The new clause therefore removes from the face of the 1976 Act the restrictions on both the number and frequency of such lotteries.

I do not expect that this relaxation in the law will cause any regulatory problems, but the new clause contains an order-making power which will enable the Home Secretary to reimpose limits on either the number or frequency of lotteries, should the need arise. We will want to keep a close watch on the operation of the 1976 Act, as amended by part III of this Bill, but we would hope not to have to reintroduce controls of that kind. Amendments Nos. 166 and 190 are consequential on new clause 12.

Mr. Renton : Can my hon. Friend tell the House under what circumstances he thinks the need to reintroduce controls might arise?

Mr. Lloyd : I do not anticipate any problems, but if, say, societies were running lotteries so similar to each other at precisely the same time that it was impossible to distinguish whether the monetary ceilings were being breached, we might consider some further regulation to enable us to distinguish between them--but I see no reason why we should have to do this. Nevertheless, the opportunity exists to do so by regulations brought back to the House.

Column 975

I hope that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will agree that amendment No. 18 is now unnecessary. Its underlying purpose --to relax restrictions on the number of lotteries that may be promoted by a society in any year--is even more completely achieved by the Government new clause, which I commend to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East) : I welcome the Government's move on this issue. At stake is the survival of hundreds of small cricket, football, rugby union and rugby league clubs. We welcome the removal of the barrier that would have meant that they could not run more than one lottery or scratch card competition at a time--perhaps at the same time as raffles on the Derby or Grand National.

I speak as the honorary president of the Lotteries Council, which, like the organisations I have mentioned, has welcomed the Minister's move.

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill) : I, too, welcome what the Minister has said. He has moved a long way since our debates in Committee and has listened to the protestations of the smaller clubs, based everywhere from Rochdale to Tranmere. Members of the Committee received representations from places that they did not even know existed. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was largely responsible for that. He managed to generate one of the largest write-in campaigns that we have ever experienced--

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : The hon. Gentleman knows all about write-in campaigns. He was responsible for 3,500

representations himself.

Mr. Alton : I am always happy to oblige. This has been a good example of the Government being responsive to positive and instructive arguments and in that spirit I am happy not to press amendment No. 18.

Mr. Corbett : The Minister will know of the great concern expressed by the smaller lotteries, not least those run by supporters clubs, when the Standing Committee was considering the Bill. He will forgive me if I slip on a black arm band when I talk about supporters of Aston Villa, Birmingham City and Warwickshire county cricket club. Their great fear was that the introduction of the national lottery and of the lotteries of which it consists might damage their vital fund-raising activities on behalf of the clubs in which they take an interest. Probably the Premier division clubs are in a stronger position to face up to the competition from the national lottery--only time will tell.

The supporters clubs of small teams representing all sports were extremely apprehensive. We appreciate the way in which the Minister has responded to arguments in Committee and to the representations organised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). I do not say that through gritted teeth, because it is important in Bills of this kind, dealing with matters that are not party political, to do our best to respond to what people outside with proper concerns say to us.

The Minister's proposal in the context of the Home Office is positively revolutionary, because it is a long time since the Home Office was prepared to let go of a beloved

Column 976

regulation. That applies especially to the grey areas in the Home Office. The Minister reminded the House of the remaining caution, and when his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked him about that, the Minister said, "We are not quite sure about whether to do this but in case we do, we want to have a fall back." It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the proviso may be needed, but on balance the caution is probably sensible. I again thank the Minister. We are delighted to support him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

Regulations for lotteries

.-(1) Section 12 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (regulations) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), at the beginning there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (3A) below".

(3) In subsection (3), after "above", there shall be inserted "but subject to subsection (3A) below".

(4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted :

"(3A) Regulations under this section shall not prohibit the sale of a ticket or chance in any bingo club premises, within the meaning of Part II of the Gaming Act 1968."

(5) In consequence of the preceding provisions of this section, so much of regulation 6 of the Lotteries Regulations 1977 (which prohibits the sale of tickets and chances in certain premises) as prohibits such sales in bingo club premises (within the meaning of the said Part II) shall cease to have effect.'.-- [Mr. Fry.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In Committee the Minister gave some guidance about where national lottery tickets would be sold. The new clause seeks to allow the sale of local authority lottery tickets and other lottery tickets in bingo clubs. The Minister outlined the principle that national lottery tickets will not be sold in the traditional markets for charity lotteries, such as public houses, the intention being that there should be no damage to the proceeds of such local lotteries which perform many good works.

The new clause is intended to explore the issue in relation to bingo clubs which are currently prevented from selling local charity lottery tickets. In that respect I declare my interest because I am the parliamentary consultant to the Bingo Association of Great Britain, which represents about 740 licensed bingo clubs throughout the country. The industry is keen to compete with and where possible participate in the national lottery. However, the White Paper that preceded the Bill said that bingo clubs would not be allowed to sell national lottery tickets, and the Minister confirmed that in the earlier debates on the Bill.

It seems rather strange that people who have joined a club to have a modest flutter should not be allowed to buy a national lottery ticket there. The Government seem to have moved a little way from the policy of non- stimulation of any form of gaming merely by promoting the Bill. My suggestion will not propel us all towards a hectic Sodom and Gomorrah in which the country gambles all its spare money. There has already been much talk about the so-called level playing field for the various forms of gambling. Betting office hours in England and Scotland have been extended because of the damage that might be caused as a result of people gambling on a wider basis. The exact way

Column 977

in which the national lottery will affect other forms of gambling is not yet clear, although there is great concern that they will be harmed. It is not necessarily good that other forms of gambling, and especially soft gambling, should be damaged too much.

Many hon. Members who visit their local bingo clubs know that they provide a valuable social activity as well as the opportunity of a flutter. Many such clubs are communities in themselves because people go there to meet friends as much as to play bingo. I remind the House that bingo is the safest and most acceptable form of commercial evening venue for single ladies who perhaps would not venture into any other sort of gambling establishment.

The industry has shown considerable community spirit and has a remarkable record of fund raising for charity. For example, over the past five years, the Bingo Association's annual charity week has raised £1.5 million. In 1987, it raised £200,000 for the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign. The following year, it was £220,000 for the British Heart Foundation, which used the money to buy 50 defibrillators to resuscitate heart attack victims on the way to hospital. In 1989, it raised £404,000 for Guide Dogs for the Blind--the largest ever single donation. The Royal National Lifeboat Institute received £245,000 in 1990, which paid for the lifeboat Bingo Lifeline. In 1991, £295,000 was donated to Marie Curie Cancer Care and last year £271,000 was raised for the Spinal Injuries Association.

4.30 pm

All that is on top of the money raised locally by individual clubs. This year, the charity work will not be for a national charity but co-ordinated at local level, so that players can choose charities in their area. Raising such large amounts of money requires imagination and hard work. If bingo clubs were allowed to run their own lotteries for charity, in the same way as other organisations do, it would add another feature to the fund-raising efforts.

I know that gaming premises are not allowed to run lotteries because there is a distinction between commercial and charitable activities. As such lotteries would be for charity--that is the main drift of the new clause-- that should not present any problems. If the drafting of my new clause is not acceptable, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be prepared to accept the spirit of the new clause and instil it into a suitable form of words at a later stage, perhaps in the other place.

Mr. Corbett : I spent a little time last Saturday afternoon in the Cascade bingo club in Barnabas road in Erdington, in my constituency, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) will know. There was a crowd of perhaps 300 people, paying devoted attention to the caller. They were mainly elderly and clearly out to enjoy themselves in groups of friends, to make use of the excellent refreshment and bar facilities at a cost of no more than £3, to spend a pleasant afternoon and perhaps--I think that it comes in this order--to win a few bob on the bingo. The nearest there was to trouble was when, inadvertently, I raised my voice to ask a question of Mr. John Wiley, the Cascade managing director, as the numbers were being called. That provoked a storm of sh's from those listening. The atmosphere, as anyone who has

Column 978

visited a bingo club will know, was happy and relaxed. The players were enjoying themselves. Hundreds do that every week in that club and countless thousands in other clubs.

In essence, if I have understood this right, bingo is little different from the national lottery, in that players have to win by having a ticket, or a chance, which bears a predetermined set of numbers. What is little known is that the club, like many others--the hon. Member for Wellingborough referred to that--gives between £5,000 and £6,000 a year to local charities and joins the other clubs, in the Bingo Association of Great Britain, in raising money for charities on a national basis.

The new clause would enable club members to buy lottery tickets for charitable causes, including for local charities. By no flight of fantasy could anybody suggest that the buying and selling of such local charity tickets would get in the way of the national lottery. They are very different animals. While the impact of the national lottery on the whole range of charity lotteries is unknown, if the lottery is to succeed it must attract a totally different audience from that which likes supporting local charities because the bulk of the money goes to the charity named on the ticket--bar administrative costs and prize money. It will not be divvied up like the national lottery. Participants will see the name of a local charity of which they approve and want to support and buying a ticket for 20p, 30p or 50p will be a way of donating to that cause--and there is the bonus that one may win whatever prize money is offered.

I hope that the Minister accepts that that is a very different market from the national lottery. The atmosphere in which bingo is played, which I sought to describe, is peaceful and restful. I asked Mr. Wiley when was the last time that there was any serious trouble. He told me that after running the place for two years after a management buy-out, he could not remember there ever being any trouble. fun which I am sure they would not regard as gambling. A neighbour of mine, who is a man of mature years, although he acts 20 years younger, goes to bingo with his relatives and friends--in his case I believe that they are the same--at least twice a week. It is rare for him on at least one of those visits not to come away with a few extra bob in his pocket. He goes there purely for pleasure and for social reasons --not for the money, although he welcomes his winnings.

I do not believe that anything will be lost by allowing bingo clubs to sell tickets in aid of local charities and, if they want, to run their own lotteries in aid of local charities if others are not doing so. That would in no way detract from the ambitions of the national lottery.

As the hon. Member for Wellingborough said, the Minister may not be able for whatever reason to accept the amendment's wording, but I hope that he will reconsider between now and the Bill going to another place. There is nothing to lose and no gambling involved in allowing bingo clubs and their members to do as we ask.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made a fair case for allowing bingo clubs to sell tickets in society or local lotteries. He reminded the House that I intimated in Committee that

Next Section

Home Page