---

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): This issue is important in my constituency as the Ladbroke Group plc is the largest employer in Harrow, West. Its telephone betting centre in Rayners lane is not a small operation--it looks more like Houston mission control, with a huge bank of monitors and many people taking bets over the telephone. The point of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will not be lost on my constituents who work at that centre and those who work in the betting offices of Ladbroke's and other companies throughout the country.

I believe that the national lottery is run spectacularly well by Camelot. Many people attacked Camelot initially and took a rather rose-tinted view of the other applicants, but Camelot is now returning a maximum amount of money to good causes and its running costs are less than those of some applicants who claimed that they would be doing us a favour. The success of the national lottery has had an inevitable effect on other associated industries. I believe that most people who complain that the lottery is affecting their businesses or charities are not telling the whole truth. I believe that they blame the national lottery simply because it is convenient and they know that their claims will receive press coverage.

Mr. Tim Smith: I am surprised by my hon. Friend's comments. Some £5 billion is bet on the national lottery each year, and that has clearly had some significant macroeconomic effects. For example, there is a large black hole in value added tax receipts, and research suggests that that is partly because consumer spending that would have been VAT-able has switched to the national lottery. Therefore, I think that it has had significant effects on businesses and charities throughout the country.

Mr. Hughes: I agree that the national lottery has had a significant effect on the pattern of retail sales, which has

7 Feb 1997 : Column 1256

led to the black hole in VAT receipts that my hon. Friend mentioned. Some charities--particularly those that sell scratchcards--have been seriously affected. I was referring to those who claim to have been affected by the national lottery, but whose pattern of fundraising was clearly very different and did not appeal to people who spend money on the lottery. However, some bodies, such as the betting industry, have clearly been affected. Scratchcards have had a huge impact. The average bet on a horse race is about £2.60.

Mr. John Greenway: Plus tax.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable in such matters. People would buy their newspapers or cigarettes and spend the change from a fiver in the nearest betting shop. Such sums constituted a substantial portion of the betting industry's income. People now choose to buy a couple of scratchcards, so the money is going directly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) described as a national monopoly rather than to the private industries that run betting shops. I praise the way in which the big betting organisations, such as Ladbroke's and William Hill, have lobbied for change on a purely factual basis. The levy was altered in the Budget before last in order to ameliorate their losses.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should adopt a real partnership approach to the betting industry and its support for racing? In that regard, do he and his constituents who work at Ladbroke's headquarters in Harrow share my joy at this week's announcement that Ladbroke's has finally done a deal with Tote credit?

Mr. Hughes: Ladbroke's advised me that that was about to happen, and it is very good news for my constituents and for the many people who work in betting shops throughout the country.

Mr. Greenway: And racing.

Mr. Hughes: It is also good news for the racing industry. I have described to the House why the national lottery has substantially affected trade patterns and reduced the amount of trade in betting shops. As hon. Members have said, the industry has applied to be allowed to take bets on the lottery lucky numbers. That practice has not had any adverse effects on the success of lotteries in other countries, and such bets can be made on the lucky numbers in the Irish lottery.

I think that the time has come to have enough confidence in the national lottery and its continued success to allow private bookmakers to take such bets and begin to rebuild their businesses. That would be fair and reasonable, and it should not affect the success of the national lottery. The only factor that is liable to affect its success is the Labour party's wild talk about changing the contract completely and increasing Government control over the way in which the money is used for good causes. As the national lottery is such a great success, we should allow those bets to be made.

I understand why the words that my hon. Friend's amendment seeks to remove are in the Bill. We all know that, in a usual Session--let alone a short Session such as this--private Member's Bills are very delicate flowers.

7 Feb 1997 : Column 1257

Unless they enjoy the support of all hon. Members--but notably of the Government and the official Opposition--they do not stand a chance of being passed. I understand why the Government said, in line with the policy that they have so far adopted, that they could not allow an extension to allow betting on the national lottery to take place when my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale decided to insert the clause, but I urge them to think again. I ask them to think about those who work in the betting industry throughout the country and to think about the solidity of the national lottery. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and the Bill so that we might bring some justice to an injured betting industry.

10.30 am

Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham): I shall speak against the amendment, but I hasten to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that I strongly support the Bill as originally drafted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said that he felt that the law would be clear because of the implications of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, and that removing part of the clause would not immediately allow the Tote to accept bets on the outcome of the lottery. I believe that there would still be an ambiguity in the law. If the Bill were enacted, it would appear to allow betting on any event, whereas the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 appears to prevent it. For the purposes of clarity, surely it would be best to leave the relevant part of the clause in being.

My hon. Friend was honest with the House in that he argued that betting should be allowed on the outcome of the national lottery. He was perhaps keenest to advance that general argument, which has been taken up by other contributors to the debate. It is a valid argument, but I feel that this is the wrong moment to embark on it. This is a complex subject and, given the passions that were aroused during our deliberations on the National Lottery etc, Bill, perhaps we should consider it in more detail and debate it more thoroughly. I believe that that debate should be based on more detailed research and evidence. I would say that it is valid for us to trot round the course this morning. We might even say, "Lay your bets now." This is not the moment, however, to start the race. That should be left for a future occasion.

If the amendment allowed bets to be placed on the outcome of the national lottery in the Tote, we would immediately have the ludicrous and contradictory situation of such betting being allowed on the Tote but prohibited in betting shops.

Mr. John Greenway: No. I understand my hon. Friend's confusion. The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 prohibits all betting on the outcome of the national lottery, whether in Tote betting shops or in other high street betting shops.

Mr. Merchant: I am aware of that. With respect to my hon. Friend, perhaps he was not listening to my argument earlier. I said that what he has outlined was probably the case, but that I thought that there might be an ambiguity if the Bill becomes law, the amendment having been agreed to. The interpretation might be that the Tote could accept betting on the outcome of the national lottery. If that interpretation was made by the courts, we would have

7 Feb 1997 : Column 1258

the ludicrous situation of national lottery outcome betting being allowed in the Tote, but not in betting shops. That would be unacceptable.

I am saying that if the House wished to alter the present implications of the National Lottery etc. Act on betting on the outcome of the national lottery, that should be done across the board and not only for the Tote. Betting shops should be included as well. We should consider briefly whether it would be a good thing for the Tote to be allowed to bet on the outcome of the national lottery, even though I think that we should put off a final decision until a later date.

There is a danger that the national lottery might be damaged. We need to assure ourselves beyond all doubt that that would not be the outcome. It has been said that the national lottery has been an unparalleled success, and more successful than expected. That success is demonstrated by the fact that money put on the national lottery has to an extent come from money that would have been used for betting. Indeed, the betting industry's turnover has fallen if the national lottery is excluded. If it is included, the industry's turnover has increased. In other words, there has been a substitution. That is strong evidence that the national lottery has been a success. It is also evidence that when we change what is permitted in betting there is a slightly unpredictable change in the amount of money deposited in the different sections of betting. On that basis, we cannot be certain that if betting is allowed on the national lottery outcome there will not be a similar change, with a haemorrhage of funds flowing away from the national lottery towards betting on the outcome of the lottery. There could be some damage to the lottery, which needs to be researched and, wherever possible, quantified.

---