---

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the amendment, not matters external to the Chamber.

Mr. Dykes: As a European, I hasten to add--I hope without straying out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker--that in some other European Parliaments Members can introduce private Member's legislation, which is so valuable in the House. We are all glad that the potential proportion of private Member's legislation has been increased under recent procedural changes.

I am chairman of the Anglo-French parliamentary liaison group. The Assemblee Nationale has a similar system of private Members' legislation. A Government Bill there is called a projet de loi whereas a private Member's Bill is called a proposition de loi. I do not know why I make that point, but perhaps it is interesting to see that private Members in the French Parliament can also deal with matters such as betting. In France, all betting is governed by the Tote whereas in Britain we have the private enterprise system of bookies, which many people prefer. Bookmakers take their own entrepreneurial view, sometimes in a quasi-cartelised way, which they are allowed to do under the law, and sometimes individually. If I remember correctly the modalities of the system, the Tote is based only on the weight of money inputs so it is a mathematical calculation done, I presume, by the Tote computer.

I welcome the expansion in the use of the Tote. It is a congenial way of betting. It is the way in which I mostly place bets. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and I had the pleasure of going to the races briefly last summer, although we had to rush back for business in the House. Apart from that, I attended only the Cheltenham Gold Cup meeting last year, also briefly, on the most important day--I think the Thursday. So it was a lean year for attending the races, which is something that I like to do if time allows. There is no time for such things nowadays, for self-evident reasons.

The Tote is a popular form of betting. Its usage has increased in recent times.

I strongly agree with the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale to the fact that his informal uncle--not his real uncle--my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has a deep knowledge of racing and horses. I have the pleasure of reminding the House that he also is an active visitor to the most famous riding school in my constituency, Suzanne's riding school, which is extremely successful and has done a great deal for riding for the disabled and other worthwhile causes. People in riding schools are interested in betting and use the Tote, as do other members of the public.

In respect of the national lottery, I would welcome other changes which have often been aired and are germane to the amendment--the degree to which the national lottery system should be protected or ring-fenced by arrangements such as those proposed in the original text of the Bill, which my hon. Friend's amendment

7 Feb 1997 : Column 1253

would remove. Such protection was necessary, and remains necessary to some extent, because the national lottery is still new and we needed to see its effects. It has had a considerable impact, and even those who did not like the concept of a national lottery--many people are against even modest betting and gambling--or its structure in the United Kingdom have often changed their minds as they have seen the enormous sums deployed on worthwhile charitable and social causes throughout the country. In my constituency we have benefited considerably from national lottery money.

However, I remain firmly of the view that a system that combined a smaller total prize potential than the multi-millions that are dispensed regularly, with more reasonable odds than the astronomically large odds that are available, would be better.

Mr. Tim Smith: May I suggest to my hon. Friend--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not here to discuss the national lottery and the distribution of prizes. The amendment is specific, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to it.

Mr. Dykes: I shall obey your advice immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referring to the way in which the national lottery is protected by arrangements, which is germane to the amendment in one respect, but I shall not pursue that. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) will forgive me if, in response to Mr. Deputy Speaker's suggestion, I do not give way, unless he wishes to persist, with the permission of the Chair.

Mr. Tim Smith: I wanted to ask my hon. Friend about the amendment. That might be in order. I agree that huge sums have been raised for charity by the national lottery and it has been a great success. Of course it is true that the competition to run it was won by Camelot, which has done an excellent job. However, the national lottery is a state-approved monopoly. Now that it is so firmly established, I do not believe that it needs protection. It has tremendous advantages in terms of advertising and is the single event on which no bookmaker or the Tote can take a bet. That cannot be right.

Mr. Dykes: As I overcome my shock at my hon. Friend's insistence that I should refer to the amendment, I have a good deal of sympathy with his argument. That is why I am not yet persuaded what my own conclusion should be. I await guidance from the Minister.

Whatever the protection system of the national lottery--I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point--an arrangement akin to the more modest payouts and odds system of the football pools would be congenial to millions of people when they consider the structure and characteristics of the national lottery.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale will not mind my saying that I still have doubts about his amendment. I would like further guidance on it, as the original text seemed rational and would strengthen the role of the Tote and the board in a way that many citizens would appreciate.

Lady Olga Maitland: I give a warm welcome to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for

7 Feb 1997 : Column 1254

Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I served on the Standing Committee that considered the national lottery Bill, and I recall the vivid debate that took place when the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), told the Committee that the success of the national lottery would in no way affect any outside organisations or interests. The debate was on protection for the pools organisations, Littlewoods and Vernons.

When the national lottery came into being, it was a success beyond our wildest dreams. It could not be threatened by any other organisation. On the contrary, its success threatened the survival of the pools promoters. Their take dropped sharply and they had to lay off staff, not in dozens, but in hundreds. Many of those laid off relied on the small sums that they could make from selling tickets.

10.15 am

We must also examine the effect of the national lottery on the Tote. People's betting habits have changed as a result of the lottery. Takings from the Tote have fallen sharply. Its income has gone down by at least £1.5 million--my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale suggested that the figure is more than that. That in turn affects support for other organisations, such as race courses and welfare interests. The pools promoters, through the constitution of their bodies, set up the Sports and Arts Council Foundation and the Football Trust, which have also suffered a drop in funds.

It is in no one's interest for the Tote to suffer loss. It is invidious to suggest that the national lottery is threatened by the Tote. People cannot place a bet on the national lottery, but they can place a bet on the Irish lottery. A Goliath of the scale of the national lottery could be generous and a bit of a sport, and allow other organisations to compete in a fair if more modest way. They should all have a chance.

I hope that the amendment will be seriously considered by my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a reasonable man. If he will not accept it today, I hope that appropriate legislation will be forthcoming in future.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy (Liverpool, Broadgreen): I shall take a few minutes to outline the Opposition's position. It is appropriate that I should follow the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), as we spent many hours together in the Standing Committee that debated the national lottery.

It might cheer the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to know that, after the National Lottery etc. Bill was enacted, I spoke to representatives of the pools workers. Through their representatives in the House, they had presented their case for their business to be allowed to compete on fairer grounds. There was, of course, dismay that those representations were not heeded by the Government, but when I rang them and told them how disappointed we all were, they said, "Never mind, Jane, we are going out to put a bet on the national lottery to see whether we can be the first millionaires and bring the money to Liverpool."

That was the immediate reaction of local people. There is no denying that the lottery is hugely popular and successful, although I must confess to never having bought a ticket myself. When I go to my newsagents, especially on a Saturday, and see my neighbours standing

7 Feb 1997 : Column 1255

in queues, I regard it as quite an achievement, and to the Government's credit, that they have found a way of encouraging people to stand in queues at their newsagents to pay their taxes to the Exchequer.

The national lottery introduced scratchcards in an attempt to continue to allocate £15 million per week to good causes, and it has now initiated a midweek draw to sustain its sales. When debating the lottery's potential impact, we considered the fact that sales would tail off as public interest inevitably waned and people realised that they had only a slim chance of winning. That has not yet occurred, although it is too early to predict when--if at all--it will have an effect. I hope that it will not.

In the circumstances, we want to review carefully the case for allowing bookmakers and the Tote to accept bets on the outcome of the national lottery. Any decision to allow it must depend on a demonstration that there would be no significant impact on the £15 million per week that the national lottery allocates to good causes. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will resist his hon. Friends' arguments at present. We do not oppose the amendment in principle: it is a matter of waiting to gauge the impact of the midweek draw. In time, perhaps we will be able to demonstrate that further deregulation and relaxation of the gambling regulations could take place without any detrimental effects on the national lottery.

---