---

Column 991

The lottery headquarters is located in the poorer quarters of the city for two reasons : first, the lottery provides jobs for the local community ; and, secondly, it is the people's lottery. It is all very well the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) to suggest that the lottery will be patronised by their constituents--as it will be. The fact is that the vast majority of people purchasing lottery tickets will be people on lower incomes. The lottery is a form of regressive taxation because its greatest appeal will be to those who have the least. Therefore, the lottery headquarters should be located in an area where it can serve the people best. If the lottery is to be a success, it must appeal across the board. The vast majority of people who will participate in the lottery will have fairly limited resources. As a small gesture towards employment policy, we should consider the regions that deserve the few jobs that the lottery will provide.

5.30 pm

Mr. Kilfoyle : I do not have a great deal to add to what has been said today and what was said in Standing Committee where, as members of the Committee will be aware, we explored the issue fully. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made an aside from a sedentary position earlier to which I should like the Minister to reply. The hon. Member for South Hams said that the lottery headquarters could be located anywhere in the world. That is an interesting hypothetical proposition. Tattersalls is a very good lottery operator in Australia. If it is technically posible with electronic mail and similar technology for Tattersalls, with all its expertise, to bid to operate a lottery here, could our lottery be run from overseas--for example, from Europe or elsewhere? I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

Mr. Graham : All hon. Members are aware of my feelings about the national lottery. I would much have preferred to be here today arguing that the pools should continue as they are. However, I have received hundreds of letters from people who work in the pools industry. They believe that they are now facing the dole. I can understand that belief when we consider how pools companies in other countries have gone to the wall when lotteries were introduced in those countries.

It is unbelievable that Conservative Members are joining in the worst kind of lottery imaginable--the lottery for jobs. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is very fortunate that his constituency does not suffer the kind of unemployment that is raging throughout the country. Areas like Strathclyde and Merseyside are experiencing unbelievable and horrific levels of unemployment. The hon. Member for Basildon should come with me and speak to people who are on the dole in my area who have been working their butts off trying to get a job. Some of them have been unemployed for years. They look for work every day of every week.

The pools industry faces a catastrophe. Thousands of members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have already lost their jobs as a result of the recession and the economic situation created by the Government. If the Bill is passed, thousands more members of the USDAW will be on the dole.

---

Column 992

In all fairness, I recognise the thinking behind the new clause. If there is to be a headquarters for the national lottery, we must bear in mind the thousands of people who face the dole. I understand that we are talking about the creation of about 100 jobs. I believe that one extra job in my constituency is worth fighting for. I am sure that my colleagues will accept that any jobs are welcome so long as we are increasing the number of jobs and not taking them away. I saw Conservative Members smiling earlier. They will never see me smiling when folk face the dole. I was on the dole and I know what it is like. I know how important it is to work and to get a wage at the end of the week to pay the rent, mortgage and electricity bills. I have worked hard during my life and I have been on the dole. I have faced it and felt it.

Mr. Nigel Evans : Would the hon. Gentleman support the social chapter which would cost thousands of jobs in this country?

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. That is not relevant to this particular debate.

Mr. Graham : I am delighted to have your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I do not wish to join in the obscene bidding for Strathclyde, Merseyside or anywhere else. I hope that wisdom will prevail. I hope that the site of the headquarters will be determined after we have considered the areas in this country that face unemployment. Indeed, unemployment is still increasing in many areas.

I have examined the new clause. It may be important for us to be seen to argue for the headquarters to be located in an area that is suffering deprivation and unemployment. However, if the Bill had not been introduced, thousands of workers would be working away merrily and happily. They would still be picking up a wage at the end of the week. They would still be able to take the jobs that they need. They would still be sharing their wealth with the nation by paying their contributions to the tax system.

I agree reluctantly with the new clause. I plead with Conservative Members to consider the fact that the situation is of their making. Will the Minister please give us an assurance? Not long ago, it was said on the Floor of the House that thousands of jobs would not be lost as a result of the Bill. If hundreds of jobs are lost, will the Minister review the situation? Would he then come back to the House and tell us what he intends to do about it?

I sincerely hope that the Minister will genuinely consider the workers who possibly face the dole. When Ministers come to take the decision, I hope that they will consider the people on Merseyside. I believe fundamentally that the folk on Merseyside probably have a larger and more justified claim to have the headquarters located in their area than people anywhere else in the country. I am sure that none of my colleagues from Glasgow or Renfrew district would argue against the folk on Merseyside.

The hon. Member for Basildon is jocular. I may be entering into a similar spirit, but I do not know where Basildon is. However, I certainly know where the dole queues are and I know where they lead. They lead to a dismal life for millions of our people. I hope that the people of Basildon, like the people in my constituency, feel

---

Column 993

that at the end of the day, the headquarters of the national lottery might provide a future and perhaps a new career for unemployed people.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been rather caught up today. I lost my hearing aid tonight and I cannot find it. However, some people will lose their jobs because of this Government and they will not be able to find new jobs.

Mr. Pendry : I, too, support the thrust of the new clause. Any objective person listening to the debate will have observed the contrast between some hon. Members' rather frivolous approach to the problem of unemployment and the attitude voiced by, for instance, my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and for Knowsley.

Mr. George Howarth : Knowsley, North.

Mr. Pendry : I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). I accept that an important distinction is involved. The able way in which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke to the new clause shows how deeply Opposition Members feel about the problem. Since the introduction of the Bill, they--along with some Conservative Members--have expressed great concern about the lottery's effect on employment levels in the pools industry.

As has already been pointed out, Liverpool, Cardiff, Glasgow and indeed London are the most vulnerable areas. Liverpool has a male unemployment rate of 20.8 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 15 per cent. ; Cardiff has a male unemployment rate of 14.1 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 9.9 per cent. ; Glasgow has a male unemployment rate of 15.5 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent. Of course, those figures cannot in themselves convey the lack of personal esteem and social cohesion that was so graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde.

During the past few days, Conservative Members have claimed that the recession is now over ; but it still seems very real for the 3 million people who are out of work, with no real chance of finding a job. All the three known reports that have investigated the effects of a national lottery on the pools industry have predicted a severe impact on employment. In many ways, the findings of the report by the GAH group seem the least pessimistic : according to The Guardian, it suggests that 1,100 pools jobs will be lost in Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and London. The Coopers and Lybrand report--commissioned by the pools promoters in response to the Government's White Paper last year--predicted the closure of Vernons and Zetters, and a 40 per cent reduction in Littlewoods' turnover.

Like other hon. Members, I accept that concessions made in Committee have gone some way towards establishing a more level playing field between the lottery and the pools industry. It remains the case, however, that the establishment of a lottery is likely to reduce employment--both those employed directly by the pools industry, who were cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and of part-time coupon collectors--in the absence of counterveiling employment creation measures. Surely it is fair to propose to give the areas that

---

Column 994

will be most adversely affected by the lottery's introduction a better-than-average chance of housing its headquarters.

For those reasons, Labour Members accept the spirit of the new clause. I hope that the Minister will follow suit.

Mr. Key : I recognise the depth of feeling about this issue. One of the joys of the English language is that it allows people to express deep feelings, sometimes through anger and passion and sometimes through humour ; on occasion, the dividing line is narrow. Although some of my hon. Friends--and, indeed, some Opposition Members--may have spoken with levity, no one should doubt that the current feelings about unemployment on Merseyside are registered and understood. Such feelings run deep in the House, as, of course, they do among all who face unemployment. As we are discussing the pools industry, I should cite Strathclyde as well as Cardiff and London : all have sizeable populations involved in, or reliant on, the pools industry. It is true that the new clause is very tightly drawn. I am sure that that was intended. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is difficult to see how so narrow and prescriptive a measure could fit comfortably in the Bill : I recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) drew our attention to the problems.

The fact is that we do not know what will happen to jobs in the pools industry ; what we do know is that the lottery will create a number of jobs. Although only a modest number will be created in the headquarters, I expect thousands to be generated nationwide in the operation of the lottery and in the supporting industries--computing, marketing, printing and the retail sector which will sell the tickets.

That, however, is not the burden of the argument, which is concerned with jobs on Merseyside. As I said in Committee, I understand the position very well : I would scarcely have spent my time in north America trying to persuade the Americans to invest in Liverpool if I did not consider Merseyside worthy of investment. As has been said, it has a good track record.

5.45 pm

The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) made a strong speech, which was not devalued a jot by his constituency interest. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson)--who spoke eloquently in Committee-- reminded us that we should look north of the border as well. That view was echoed by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), who, over the years, has established a reputation for sincerity in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made a sensible speech on behalf of his constituents. It would be wrong for any hon. Member representing the north of England to assume that the position in the south and west is not serious, as I discovered a couple of weeks ago during a tour of Devon and Cornwall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is right : we need to talk about a successful lottery that will generate more jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) pointed out that, if the headquarters were located in that town, we could be

---

Column 995

certain of securing one of my ambitions--a very British lottery. As my hon. Friend said, Basildon is at the heart of Britain.

Mr. Maxton : With all due respect, I must defend my fellow Scots. I think that the Minister should have said "at the heart of England".

Mr. Key : Let us say "at the heart of the United Kingdom". The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) made a passionate speech. I am grateful to him for setting the debate in a wider context.

Technology being what it is, the lottery's headquarters could, of course, be located almost anywhere in the world, but I can reassure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that they will be located in the United Kingdom ; otherwise, it would be extremely difficult to enforce licence conditions. It is normal throughout the world for lottery operators to be located in the country concerned. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) provided the touchstone of the debate. I congratulate her : I know that for many months she has worked tirelessly on this difficult issue on behalf of her constituents. She has always brought originality as well as fervour to our debates, and she did not let us down on this occasion, even including a touch of poetry. That is another joy of the English language, and I commend her constituent who composed the poem.

I appreciate the spirit behind the new clause, although I cannot back its premise that the national lottery will have a significant effect on unemployment in specific areas. I have said on many occasions that the effect of the national lottery on employment in the pools industry will depend on how the pools promoters choose to conduct their operations.

As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde remarked, we moved a long way in Committee on the problems confronting the pools industry. However, employment levels in the pools industry are steadily declining and I have not heard any guarantee that employment levels would be maintained if we did not introduce a national lottery. There is a problem of technology as well as the problem of the national lottery. Of course markets are not set in concrete. Pools operators throughout the world are restructuring to make their games more attractive. Now the pools industry in Britain has an opportunity to do a great deal more in modernising its regime as a result of the changes which we introduced in Committee.

I accept one aspect of the serious intent behind new clause 4. I accept that the siting of the headquarters and associated service components of the new national lottery represents a tremendous opportunity for jobs which many areas are keen to attract. Wherever the operator sets up--much of Oflot's operation would be likely to follow--the area chosen would benefit enormously from direct employment and the secondary benefits which that produces. However, I cannot accept the new clause because it contains the wrong emphasis. We should also avoid inserting such a restrictive clause into the Bill and into modern legislation. I repeat the point that I made in Committee, that if I were a potential clause 5 operator, I would contact areas designated assisted areas and the

---

Column 996

Department of Trade and Industry to learn about the many advantages intrinsic to those assisted areas and the many Government benefits available to companies which establish themselves there.

Many of the organisations which are interested in putting in a bid are looking at assisted areas with a view to setting up the headquarters and manufacturing the hardware for the lottery in those areas. That is most welcome. Merseyside development corporation, to name one excellent assisted area, has drawn up plans to offer potential operators every possible advantage and facility in setting up in Merseyside. Liverpool city council has also worked on the project. That is particularly welcome.

Many more areas have made such plans. It is not a matter for frivolity. Genuine bids have been made for the work from as far afield as Glasgow and Tayside, Cornwall, Dorset, and, as we have heard today, Basildon and Torbay. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is naturally keen that we should guarantee that the lottery operation will go to Liverpool. That would be unfair to the other areas which have already expressed interest in welcoming the lottery.

The new clause is tightly drawn. I personally think that it is rather impractical. I do not take much pleasure from imagining areas vying with one another to show that they stand to suffer more than other areas from the advent of the lottery. That is rather macabre.

Mr. Graham : Does not the Minister accept the point made by Opposition Members that Merseyside, Strathclyde and other areas will probably suffer loss of employment in the pools industry as a result of the introduction of the lottery? We therefore make a special plea for the headquarters to be set up in one of those areas.

t is straightforward. Under clause 11, the Secretary of State will ensure that location is one of the many matters which are taken into account in deciding whether to grant a licence. That could not be an overriding consideration if it conflicted with the director general's overriding duties in clause 4 to create a lottery run with propriety in the interests of participants generating maximum net proceeds. However, I am clear that it should be one of the matters which are taken into account. That puts an onus on the interested areas to make their best case to potential operators.

Today's debate has ensured that any potential operator who takes seriously the proceedings on the Bill in the House will, on reading the report of the debate, be under no misapprehension about the seriousness with which we have treated the subject. They will therefore bear in mind carefully what I have said about granting a licence.

Mr. Alton : With the leave of the House, I should like to make a few remarks in response to the debate. I recognise that we have had a good debate in which many hon. Members have participated. Obviously, I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. I am also sorry that he misrepresented the new clause. I did not intend to seek a Division, but after hearing his reply I feel more determined to press the matter, if it is the will of Opposition Members that we should test the issue.

It worried me that the Minister suggested that the amendment contained an attempt to bring the headquarters of the national lottery specifically to the city of

---

Column 997

Liverpool. The new clause does not mention Liverpool once. It seeks to set out a clear principle that, if a part of the country can demonstrate that it has lost jobs as a direct consequence of the introduction of the national lottery, the headquarters should be situated in that area. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. If the Minister had said that, although he was not happy to include the new clause in the Bill, he accepted the principle and would reflect before the Bill went to another place on whether he could go some way to meeting hon. Members' points, I would have been happy to act reasonably and would not have pressed the new clause to a Division. But, in the light of what has been said, I believe that the issue is so important that the House ought to divide on it. Every Member of Parliament could have set out a case for his constituency. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is an indomitable and well-known spirited fighter for his constituency, but the fact remains that his constituency will not directly lose a single job as a result of the introduction of the national lottery. That also applies to the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). The hon. Member for Surbiton referred to job losses at British Aerospace. They have nothing whatever to do with the introduction of the national lottery, as he would be the first to concede.

But jobs will be lost at Zetters, Vernons and Littlewoods in the view of many Opposition Members who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and for other

constituencies.

It is the clear view of many people that jobs will be lost. It is the view of the industry itself. I am the first to accept that that may not happen. If it does not, the new clause makes the way clear to site the headquarters in any part of the country that can demonstrate that it would be the right place, be it Basildon, Torbay or Surbiton. However, if areas can demonstrate--I believe that they will be able to do so--that they have suffered a significant loss of jobs directly attributable to the introduction of the national lottery, it is surely not unreasonable for Members of Parliament from those communities to ask that the new jobs should be placed in those areas.

Hon. Members have made the point--it hardly needs reiterating--that unemployment is deeply corrosive of family and community life. It deeply affects those who become unemployed. People who are currently employed in industries such as the pools industry in Merseyside, Glasgow or London and are likely to lose their jobs will note the debate today with great care. As the hon. Member for Broadgreen said, many of them have written to Members of Parliament saying that they fear for their job. Surely it is not unreasonable to say to them that if, a year from now, they can demonstrate that, as a result of the introduction of the national lottery jobs have been lost from their community, we will ask that the new jobs created by the national lottery should go to that district.

Hon. Members from across the political divide are making a strong and united plea. The House will be aware that I disagree on many political issues with many of my hon. colleagues from Merseyside. But on this issue we are united in our plea. It is not good enough for hon. Members to accuse hon. Members from one area of militancy and extremism when they hear a united plea and a sustained

---

Column 998

argument which is perfectly reasonable. The Government should listen to that carefully. Instead of accusing hon. Members, as they did on Second Reading, of fighting the wrong battle at the last ditch, the Government should recognise that here is an example of hon. Members making a perfectly sensible proposal. I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the new clause in the Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :

The House divided : Ayes 169, Noes 259.

Division No. 251] [6 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Adams, Mrs Irene

Ainger, Nick

Allen, Graham

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ashton, Joe

Barnes, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Bayley, Hugh

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, Andrew F.

Bermingham, Gerald

Berry, Dr. Roger

Betts, Clive

Blunkett, David

Boyce, Jimmy

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Burden, Richard

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Canavan, Dennis

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Clapham, Michael

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Coffey, Ann

Connarty, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Corbett, Robin

Corston, Ms Jean

Cryer, Bob

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Dafis, Cynog

Dalyell, Tam

Darling, Alistair

Davidson, Ian

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Dixon, Don

Dowd, Jim

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eastham, Ken

Enright, Derek

Etherington, Bill

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Fisher, Mark

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Don (Bath)

Foulkes, George

Fraser, John

Fyfe, Maria

Gapes, Mike

Garrett, John

George, Bruce

Gerrard, Neil

Godsiff, Roger

Graham, Thomas

Gunnell, John

Hall, Mike

Hanson, David

Hardy, Peter

Harvey, Nick

Heppell, John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Hinchliffe, David

Home Robertson, John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Hutton, John

Ingram, Adam

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mo n)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Jowell, Tessa

Keen, Alan

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Khabra, Piara S.

Kilfoyle, Peter

Kirkwood, Archy

Leighton, Ron

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Lewis, Terry

Livingstone, Ken

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Loyden, Eddie

Lynne, Ms Liz

McAllion, John

McCartney, Ian

McKelvey, William

Maclennan, Robert

McMaster, Gordon

McWilliam, John

Madden, Max

Mahon, Alice

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Martlew, Eric

Maxton, John

Meacher, Michael

Meale, Alan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Miller, Andrew

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Morgan, Rhodri

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mudie, George

Mullin, Chris

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

O'Hara, Edward

Olner, William

O'Neill, Martin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Parry, Robert

Pendry, Tom

Pickthall, Colin

---