| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Francis Maude (Horsham): First, I congratulate the right hon. Member on a substantial change in his tune from what we have heard from him and from other Labour spokesmen previously. The White Paper contains the most remarkable, and justified, paean of praise to the success of the national lottery. On page 27, it says:
- "Our lottery"--
- "has, in a short time, become one of the most successful in the world. Compared to other lotteries around the world, it gives most to good causes and Government and"--
- "least to the operator; independent research showed that the UK Lottery's annual ticket sales were the largest of all world lotteries and that it returned the highest amount and percentage to the good causes and Government."
I sympathise with the Secretary of State because he has been rolled over by No. 10 and forced effectively to abandon the manifesto pledge that the next lottery contract should be on a not-for-profit basis. Does he now accept that it was a dogmatic and destructive pledge, that what he now proposes in the White Paper goes a long way from it, and that the formulation in his statement sounds to most of us like a restatement of the formulation that currently exists? The pledge was at odds with Labour's vaunted conversion to free enterprise and the profit motive. We welcome the effective abandonment of that commitment.
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister, who apparently said in a letter to the right. hon. Gentleman's office that
Does the Secretary of State accept that, on page 28 of the White Paper, the formulation he uses attempts to justify the continued existence of that manifesto pledge, clinging desperately to life by its fingernails:
What does the Secretary of State mean by the suggestion that yet another quango should be set up to monitor the Office of the National Lottery's handing out of the new contract? Is not that yet another case of new Labour, new quangos? The Minister proposes that the operator should be liable to financial penalties if it does not meet the terms of its licence. If the lottery is to be genuinely operated on a not-for-profit basis, does he accept that those financial penalties will, effectively, come out of the money for good causes?
Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that the creation at this stage of further good causes amounts to a breach of the principle of additionality to which the Labour party attached such importance when the legislation was going through the House? For example, does he recollect the amendment that was moved in Committee by the official Opposition spokesman and which stated
Does the Secretary of State accept that the contention occasionally made by the Government that the midweek draw is somehow a bonus which entitles them to raid proceeds in this way bears no examination? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the sums for good causes, projected over the period of the lottery, always included an uplift for scratch cards and/or the midweek draw. That has always been part of what was anticipated. Fudge it how he will, the harsh message is that hundreds of charities and groups the length and breadth of the country will be told that the Government have grabbed the money for themselves.
Did not the Prime Minister give the game away in the letter that his office sent to the Secretary of State which stated that
Labour has a black hole in its public finances of its own making, and it has been created by excessive public spending commitments beyond what the public finances can afford. The Government have got themselves into a mess and, as so often, they try to extricate themselves by going on the grab. The Secretary of State has been rolled over by No.10 and the Treasury. The people's lottery is becoming the Government's lottery, and that illustrates what we have always contended--that Labour cannot keep its hands off other people's money.
Mr. Smith:
Oh dear, Madam Speaker. I had expected somewhat better than that.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there has been a substantial change of tune. There has not. We are today publishing proposals to put in place precisely what we told the electorate during the election we would do. When the original lottery legislation was passed by the House, it was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House and was not simply the province of the then Government.
The right hon. Member said that the Government have somehow abandoned our not-for-profit objective. Although I gave him several hours to read the White Paper before I made the statement, clearly he has not read page 28, which precisely states that we maintain that objective. The goal must be to maximise the return to good causes. The current lottery operator, by the end of the term of its franchise, will have made upwards of £500 million profit. Our determination is to achieve a better deal for good causes when the franchise is renewed than is provided by the current lottery operation.
The right hon. Member said, "new Labour, new quango." I am astonished that he does not think that it is sensible that the lottery regulator should have advice from
the business world, lottery distributors and consumers in reaching the important decision on who should run the lottery in future.
The right hon. Member drew attention to the matter of the midweek lottery draw. I draw his attention to page 8 of the White Paper, which specifically spells out how the money that is additional to the overall lottery--which is available because of the midweek draw--will enable us to keep our commitments to the current distributors and to add the new good cause that we are proposing today.
The right hon. Gentleman said that, somehow, there is a black hole in the public finances. I should draw his attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, managed to find in the Budget that he announced only a few weeks ago £3.6 billion of extra resources for health and education.
The right hon. Gentleman said also that no other Cabinet Members are smiling. Perhaps that is why, in the press packs that we will issue later today, there are supportive press releases from my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
"the policy must maintain the incentives for the operator to work efficiently"?
Does that not amount to the profit motive that currently operates? Does not the word "maintain" give the game away--that these incentives currently operate and have contributed to the current success? It would be good to hear the Secretary of State accept that overtly.
"A private operator which had no check on the profits it could make might damage public confidence in the Lottery--people might even stop playing"?
Does he not accept that that is precisely what he has been arguing is the case now-- that there is no check on the profits and that that will destroy confidence? It has not: public confidence in the lottery has not been damaged. It has increased and, as the Secretary of State said in his statement, the lottery proceeds are now greater than were originally projected. Therefore, he has already defeated his own argument.
"that the amount raised by the National Lottery after the deduction of taxes and operating expenses shall be distributed solely and only to causes where it can be demonstrated that they would not otherwise be funded out of taxation or other national or local government revenues."--[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 February 1993; c.142.]
The Labour party was even tougher on additionality than the Conservative Government proposed to be. Today's proposals amount to a significant volte face.
"a key question will be finding ways of re-orientating the lottery to provide more support for projects that reflect the Government's policy objectives, such as health, education and the environment"?
How will the Secretary of State explain to the Deputy Prime Minister that the Aqua science museum in Hull is now under threat? How will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food take the news that the facelift for Whitehaven, to be funded by the Millennium Commission is now under threat? Is not the reality the fact that the only Cabinet Minister who is smiling as a result of this turnaround will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Of course, that is an unusual event and perhaps we should celebrate it on its own.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |