| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 634
Primarolo, DawnPurchase, Ken
Quin, Ms Joyce
Redmond, Martin
Rendel, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Roche, Mrs Barbara
Ruddock, Joan
Sedgemore, Brian
Sheerman, Barry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Short, Clare
Simpson, Alan
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel
Steinberg, Gerry
Column 634
Stevenson, GeorgeStrang, Dr. Gavin
Sutcliffe, Gerry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Timms, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Turner, Dennis
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Wareing, Robert N
Watson, Mike
Welsh, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm
Wigley, Dafydd
Wilkinson, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Worthington, Tony
Wray, Jimmy
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Colin Pickthall and Mr. Afred Morris
Column 634
NOESem
Column 634
NilTellers for the Noes: Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Derek Enright Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Column 635
Remaining Private Members' Bills
NATURAL DISASTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read .
Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a genuine point of order. There will be widespread anger in my constituency, indeed throughout Strathclyde--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. What is the background?
Mr. McMaster: I wish to draw your attention to Standing Order No. 94E, which is a new Standing Order covering Scottish Business. It says in paragraph (2):
"On the order being read for the second reading of a bill so certified, a motion may be made a member of the government (or, in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), `That the bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee'". Will you confirm that it would be in order for me today to lay such a motion to refer the Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee?
Second Reading deferred till Friday 17 February .
TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS FOR SLAUGHTER BILL
Order for Second Reading read .
Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why cannot the Government find time--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No questions to the Government through the Chair.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 March .
DOGS (FOULING OF LAND) BILL
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
PREVENTION OF FRAUD (REGISTRATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read .
Second Reading deferred till Friday 17 February .
ENERGY-SAVING MATERIALS (RATE OF VALUE ADDED TAX) BILL Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [20 January].
Debate further adjourned till Friday 24 March .
Column 636
WELFARE OF CALVES (EXPORT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read .
Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 March .
OLYMPIC SYMBOL ETC. (PROTECTION) BILL
Read a Second time .
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. Nicholas Winterton.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment .
Motion made, and Question , That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment .
PROTECTION OF CALVES (EXPORT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read .
Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 March .
BUILDING SOCIETIES (JOINT ACCOUNT HOLDERS) BILL Read a Second time .
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. French.] Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment .
Motion made, and Question , That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment .
INSURANCE COMPANIES (RESERVES) BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [27 January].
Debate further adjourned till Friday 17 February .
CHARITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read a Second time .
Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 15th February, the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang relating to the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1995, the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995, the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1995 and the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1995 not later than three hours after the first such Motion has been made; and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.-- [Mr. Bates.]
Column 637
Pools Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Bates.]
2.38 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I had hoped that I might catch your eye during the previous debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but unfortunately that was not to be the case. Some of my best speeches are speeches that I have never given. In fact, all my best speeches are speeches that I have never given, None the less, I am extremely grateful to be able to speak in this important debate.
I come from a small business background and the convenience store that I own sells both national lottery tickets and pools coupons. Indeed, I am probably the only Member of the House who has sold a national lottery ticket and given out prizes at the same time. Obviously there are more losers than winners with the national lottery and with the pools, but the debate is about whether the pools companies are the biggest losers of the lot. Will the pools industry survive? I refer hon. Members to an article in The Observer of 22 January with the headline, "Pools wiped out by lottery." One analyst at Barclays de Zoete Wedd believes that the decline of the pools is, "likely to be terminal." So the issue is very important.
The pools industry obviously faces serious consequences because of the introduction of the national lottery. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and I were members of the Standing Committee which considered the National Lottery etc. Bill and the subject was discussed at length. The Government said that they would always keep an eye on the effects on the pools industry. It was impossible to get away from the massive publicity that came with the introduction of the national lottery. Camelot allocated a budget of £34 million for marketing and promotion within the first six months, of which a considerable amount would have gone in launch costs. That is a large amount compared with the £9 million that the pools companies and scratch-card distributors spent in 1993. At the time of the launch, the slogan "It could be you" was on every street corner, in every paper, on the radio and on every television channel. One could not escape it. Yet the pools have only now been allowed the opportunity to advertise on television. They have also just been allowed to operate a roll-over system so that there is an accumulator on the unearned winnings from previous weeks. That is good, but not half as good as it ought to be.
Pools companies have to pay extra sums to the Government and the good causes, amounting to about 8 per cent. more per year than the national lottery has to pay. Let it not be thought that I object to the success of the national lottery, because I do not: it is a good thing and it provides much money for many good causes, as hon. Members may have seen from an answer in Hansard last week. I urge those organisations which give away money to good causes to have regard for rural areas and small towns, which may not be able to get funds from any other source, and to consider them for national lottery money.
A flutter on the national lottery is harmless. I have certainly played and, although I live in the Blackburn area, the luck that seems to reside there has not yet rubbed
Column 638
off on me--I have won £10 and I suppose that I should declare that. The national lottery should be given a fair crack of the whip. On 14 January 1993, the Select Committee on National Heritage published a report containing the following conclusions:"The Committee recommends that the Lottery and the pools should be treated equally . . . in the marketing of their products . . . in the ability to roll-over jackpots, and in the way the pools are promoted to clients who do not wish to exercise the use of skill and judgement."
I would add to that list equality in the amount of voluntary and obligatory payments that the companies make.
Littlewoods is by far the largest of the three pools companies, which also include Vernons and Zetters. All were established well before the second world war, are independent and compete with each other. Between them, they employ about 4,500 permanent employees and about 80,000 part-time employees, spread throughout the length and breadth of the country.
There will not be one Member of Parliament who does not have pools collectors living in his or her constituency. They are the backbone of the industry and for many people, especially the elderly and infirm who find it difficult to get to stores to pick up and return coupons, pools collectors are an essential resource. In many respects they are like social workers and become good companions to the people whose coupons they collect. They provide an essential service and we must be careful to do nothing to endanger what those 80,000 collectors do.
That work has certainly been endangered by the introduction of the national lottery and the unfair competition that has been built into the system. That is amply illustrated by recent job cuts by Vernons, which announced in January that it would shed 95 full-time jobs at its Liverpool headquarters. The blame for that rationalisation was laid firmly at the door of the 12.5 per cent. reduction in revenue since the start of the national lottery. Other estimates put the reduction at more than that.
The three pools companies, Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters, handle between them about 9 million entry forms a week, have an average of 13 million customers and pay out prizes totalling about £5 million a week. That shows that the industry is too important to be left to wither on the vine because of the unfair provisions relating to the national lottery.
The revenue generated by the industry is distributed in five main ways: by voluntary contributions to good causes, and through prizes, operating costs, taxes and profits. The companies distribute about £100 million a year to good causes, which include the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. I have had representations from the hon. Member for Mossley Hill about those two organisations. The funding for those worthwhile organisations was made possible by a reduction of 2.5 per cent. in the pools betting duty in the 1991 Budget and by the proceeds of a donation of 5p in every pound taken by the pools company as stake money. The foundation distributes more than £65 million a year for the improvement and creation of community facilities which would otherwise remain inferior or would not exist.
| Next Section
| Home Page |