| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. However--although we are considering hypothetical situations--if, for example, the Tote board decided that it wished to exploit the loophole, I am sure that it would be possible to devise certain franchising arrangements in which the Tote board would technically and legally be taking the bets, but in which it was renting out the buildings, facilities and machines belonging to Tote bookmakers. That could be done, and I suspect that it would be totally legal to do so. So there could be ways around the problem. However, I do not suggest that anyone will try to find ways round it. I am absolutely certain that the board does not wish to do that. It has given an assurance, and it is an honourable organisation. Nevertheless--as we are considering a Bill, and for the avoidance of any doubt--we think that it makes sense to plug that loophole.
I am of course aware that bookmakers have mounted a vigorous campaign to remove the general restriction not only on the Tote's but on bookies' ability to bet on the national lottery. They have tried to demonstrate that the concern of the Department for National Heritage is not justified. I must report, however, that the Government are not currently persuaded that that risk to good causes is one which they should take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) commented that the Government--perhaps not today, but soon--might be persuaded to change their mind. After listening to the very powerful arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), I cannot help but feel that that day may be sooner rather than later. Fortunately, I am served by excellent staff in the Home Office, and whatever arguments I have been given to mount today against those of my hon. Friends, none of them relies on the 1826 national lottery as a main defence of allowing the grave new sin of betting on the national lottery.
The Department of National Heritage is responsible for the national lottery, and it has not been persuaded by the figures provided by bookmakers on the experience in Ireland. If the sales of national lottery tickets were reduced by no more than 8 per cent., the amount the lottery raises for good causes could be reduced by at least £120 million a year.
Bookmakers have called for a degree of equity in the market place, maintaining that the lottery amounts to unfair competition. However, there is a clear distinction between an enterprise such as the lottery, which is run under licence by Camelot for public benefit, and licensed betting shops which operate for private gain. They both pay taxes, but the betting shops make pure private gain, whereas the bulk of money raised by Camelot goes to pay taxes and to support the five generic good causes.
Comments have been made about the midweek national lottery draw affecting business. The director general, as the regulator of the lottery, agreed to the introduction of the midweek draw to maintain the level of lottery turnover and to allow Camelot to achieve its projected contribution to good causes. As the midweek draw started only on Wednesday of this week, it is too early to come to any conclusion on its effects.
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1269
It is dangerous to speculate and I do not wish to hold out hope to either side in the dispute about whether people should be able to bet on the national lottery. I am not an expert on the subject, but, as an occasional buyer of lottery tickets, I do not expect the midweek draw to make nearly as much money as the Saturday draw. However, if it is a success and maintains funding, the balance of arguments will change slightly in favour of what the bookmakers have requested. In those circumstances, it would not be right for the lottery to have it all ways--to have Saturday betting and a midweek draw, keeping the funds high and not allowing betting on the outcome of the lottery. It is impossible to come to any conclusion yet. We must wait to see how the midweek draw works.
We have introduced several measures recently to assist the betting industry.
Mr. John Greenway:
I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister is about to talk about issues on which the betting industry and the Tote are grateful for the support given by the Home Office. Does he agree that, if the House decides not accept the amendment and leaves the Bill unamended, it would be sensible to ensure that any future legislative changes to the rules to allow betting on the outcome of the national lottery deal with this matter simultaneously, to avoid the Tote being disadvantaged?
Mr. Maclean:
My personal view is that I sincerely hope so. If the time comes when it is regarded as sensible to allow betting on the outcome of the national lottery, I shall argue strongly to my ministerial colleagues that the Tote should be in the same position as betting shops. I would not want it to be given a monopoly, but I would want it to be in the same position.
Mr. Rendel:
It seems to me that the Minister has made two contradictory statements. He has made it clear that he regards the matter as purely technical, without any real effect, because he accepts that the Tote board will not make use of the loophole that he thinks exists even if it is allowed to remain. He has also said that he will reverse the relevant part of the legislation if others are allowed to take bets on the lottery. However, I think that I also heard him say that if the amendment were passed today, the Government would not want the Bill to pass. Will he confirm that? If the matter is purely technical, he could let the Bill through even with the amendment.
Mr. Maclean:
I do not think that there is any contradiction in what I have said. I have pointed out that this is not simply a technical matter--it closes a loophole. There is a loophole in the legislation. We have every confidence that the Tote board, as an honourable organisation, will stick to its undertaking, but it is right to pass legislation that we think is as perfect as possible. We know that there is a loophole, so it would be foolish to let the Bill through without plugging it.
The situation may change. I cannot speculate on when that may happen--it could be in 12 years or two years. The Government may not change their mind on betting on the national lottery. A different Tote board may lose patience with the Government's view and exploit the loophole. It would be foolish to get into that position.
The issue is not merely a technical matter of no importance. It is important that legislation should carry out the Government's intention. It is the Government's
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1270
It is right to give credit to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). He, perhaps more than any previous Home Office Minister, has immersed himself in all aspects of the betting and gaming industry and brought forward proposals for sensible deregulation. He has tackled the issue with courage and vigour. His initiative has resulted in a number of measures to make betting shops more attractive to customers. The blacked-out windows are due to be removed, if that has not already happened. All-cash amusement with prizes machines were introduced last June.
The indications are that those measures have been profitable for the betting industry. The Government have not been dog in the manger, saying, "You cannot bet on the national lottery, but we are not going to let you improve your attractiveness to customers in other ways." We have tried to deregulate the gambling and betting industry where sensible to make life easier for it and better for the people who use the shops, giving them better chances.
In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done his bit to help, reducing general betting duty from 7.75 per cent. to 6.75 per cent. in March last year. The industry will also have greater freedom to advertise if the order currently under scrutiny receives parliamentary approval. All that amounts to a significant package of measures to help the industry.
Those measures are making a difference. We are pleased to note--we have heard it mentioned this morning--that there is sufficient confidence in the industry for Ladbroke to have made a major acquisition recently, installing Tote Direct terminals in its shops. The expansion of terminals will give racing and bookmakers the impetus to develop a super-bet to challenge the supremacy of the lottery.
The Tote Direct scheme has been successfully extended. The company is owned by the Tote and Coral. Its terminals in betting shops feed bets straight into Tote pools. Lord Wyatt was understandably jubilant when announcing the coup at a press conference on Tuesday this week.
That change could have major implications for the financing and marketing of racing. The number of Tote Direct terminals in Britain's betting shops is set to leap from 2,400 to more than 4,300, making possible the search for a super-bet to rival the national lottery.
Mr. Tim Smith:
I am interested that my right hon. Friend has twice talked about challenging and rivalling the national lottery. I think that he agrees with me that it is reasonable that there should be fair competition and he does not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for
7 Feb 1997 : Column 1271
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |