| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I correct my hon. Friend on one point? Once the pot gets beyond a certain size, the odds start becoming very attractive. Syndicates will buy a vast number of tickets on the basis that the odds suddenly become attractive once the pot becomes over £16 million or £17 million in a roll-over week.
Mr. Smith: I have investigated that matter. I think that it is necessary to buy about 5 million tickets to cover
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1262
every possibility and one would have to have a big syndicate of people all rushing around the shops to buy them up, but, when there is a rollover, there is a possibility that a person could corner the market. However, he would have to hope that he was the only person who won and that he had the whole lot, so it is a risky business.
I recognise, however, the validity of what my hon. Friend says. The difficulty is that, when a person bets, he has no idea how many other people will be betting. At least the bookies give him some odds and he knows that those are the odds at which he places his bet. I personally feel that, if people want to bet, that is better. I rarely bet, but I enjoy going to the races, which are rather dull if I do not have a bet.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin:
My hon. Friend has spent most of his speech referring to people who bet on the national lottery as "they". I hope that he will continue his speech with the term "we". As he is an occasional lottery better like myself, we should collectively embrace these people rather than referring to "them over there" and the constituents of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy).
Mr. Smith:
Of course I have bought lottery tickets from time to time. I even bought one of those scratchcards, but I was so upset when I did not win that I have not bought one since. I have found the same with the weekly lottery. I gave much thought to what the numbers might be and bought one ticket. When not one of them came up, I was so deeply upset about the gross waste of money that I did not do it again for a few weeks.
I must admit that I have participated in the national lottery--of course I have. It is an entirely harmless activity. The people who participate in it are part of a different market from, I would not use the term professional gamblers, but people who take an interest in the science of gambling and who like to think that they are applying a little expertise when they place a bet, like hon. Members, some of whom no doubt will place bets on certain aspects of the general election outcome.
For example, it is a pity that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) is not here now because there is an interesting bet available on the number of Liberal Democrat Members there will be in the next House. There is an interesting misconception about that. The bookies think that the Liberal Democrats will start from their present number, which I believe is 26, but of course--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I am not sure that that comes directly under the amendment. I am waiting for elucidation on it.
Mr. Smith:
One large group of people bets on the national lottery and another group takes betting a little more seriously and is better informed. Not many people bet on election outcomes--bets are mostly on horse racing, dog racing and that sort of thing--but people can bet on other activities. For example, it is interesting that there is quite a lot of betting on golf now, but may I finish my point about the Liberal Democrats because this information might be of interest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The bookies think that, because the Liberal Democrats have 26 Members now, that is the starting point, but we all know that they are going to lose all the
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1263
Mr. Robert G. Hughes:
I just wonder whether my hon. Friend is giving this good advice to Mr. Deputy Speaker, having insulted him earlier by suggesting that he was at least 150 years old.
Mr. Smith:
I certainly would never suggest that. I am deeply distressed that my hon. Friend should have placed that interpretation on my words because I think that I am right in saying that no one in the House can remember the events of 1826 and probably not many can remember the events of 1926, but may I revert to the point that I was making about the two different markets that are involved because it is important? There would be quite a lot of betting on the outcome of the lottery and bookmakers, being inventive, creative people, would create quite a lot of interesting bets that people cannot get at the moment.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at present, people win £5 if they get three numbers, they win a slightly larger sum if they get four and they can win a significant sum if they get five or more. When we think of what the possibilities are when six numbers come up, obviously, there is an interesting market there, but all I am saying is that we have reached the point where the national lottery has been such a huge success that it should have the confidence in its own ability to compete successfully in the market. As a Conservative, I am not entirely comfortable with what is essentially a state-protected monopoly. I hope therefore that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
Mr. Bernard Jenkin:
I am most grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, following the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for--
Mr. John Greenway:
Beaconsfield.
Mr. Jenkin:
I knew it was another constituency beginning with "B", a few of which have come up this morning.
I make no apology for pointing out, particularly to my hon. Friends, that we Conservatives have not created another natural business in the national lottery. We are not dealing with a privatised utility whose monopoly status can gradually be eroded such as that of British Gas or British Telecom, which are natural places for business. We are dealing with the national lottery, which is simply an emanation of the state.
I know that all our instincts suggest that, once something is thriving, it should be opened up to competition and the industry would continue to develop, but, by setting up a national lottery, we have done something of which probably Adam Smith and most certainly my noble Friend Lady Thatcher would be ashamed. We have created something that can be the product only of a monopoly.
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1264
If it were fully open to competition, the national lottery would cease to be a national lottery. It would lose its profile and effectiveness and the whole thing would degenerate into a scrum among perhaps a large number of much smaller operations, some of which would not be set up on the present basis of the national lottery, so they would not give anything to good causes.
We have to accept that we Conservatives have done rather an unfree market thing in setting up the national lottery. I do not apologise for that because I am not an economic liberal or a laissez-faire nightwatchman state-type Conservative. I am a Tory and the powers of the state are to be used for the benefit of the people, so I do not feel particularly precious about that. My great friends from the Adam Smith Institute will perhaps write to me to correct what may be a misinterpretation of Adam Smith's view on this.
Mr. Stephen:
Does my hon. Friend accept that the activities of the national lottery are for the benefit of people, in that huge sums of money generated each week are applied in large measure to good causes? Does he further accept that although the national lottery is a state-run monopoly, it is in competition with other forms of betting such as horse racing and the football pools?
Mr. Jenkin:
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I particularly agree with his comment about good causes. Huge sums of money have gone to good causes in my constituency, such as the Mercury theatre in Colchester and the local night shelter, as well as to charities, the arts and sports. My constituency has done rather well out of the national lottery, and I must confess that I am embarrassed by how well it has done compared with other constituencies. I hope that that will continue.
That success would not have been possible but for the fact that the national lottery is a monopoly, as it can only thrive as a monopoly. We ought not to be talking about deregulating its market--or opening it up to what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) called "competition"--because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) commented, there is already a lot of competition. We ought to be talking about enhancing and protecting its monopoly position, because that is how the national lottery will best continue to do the job that we have set it--namely, to raise money for good causes and to pay a bit of tax, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) pointed out.
11 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |