NATIONAL LOTTERY BILL (Hansard, 6 April 1973)

§ Mr. James Tinn (Cleveland)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill is almost identical with a Bill which I introduced a few years ago which then obtained a Second Reading but was subsequently withdrawn from Committee stage for reasons into which I need not go.
This is a Bill to authorise the creation of a National Lottery Board; to empower and require the Board to organise and operate a lottery scheme and to make grants in aid of charitable organisasions, medical research and other social and welfare purposes; and for connected purposes". I do not wish in any way to challenge the convictions or views of those who are 885 opposed to any form of gambling or to an extension of it in this way as an issue of moral principle. One can respect without agreeing with that point of view, which I believe is a minority one.
The House can hardly consistently support this view, since in various forms the State already benefits in one way or another, by the betting levy or savings bonds, from the gambling instinct present in the great majority of people which leads them to enjoy, without any great harm to themselves or anyone else, an occasional small flutter.
The passage of the necessary legislation to authorise other forms of gambling surely indicates the acceptance by society that it is worth while using for beneficial purposes this widespread national instinct to have a little flutter. I believe that this idea enjoys widespread support not merely in the House but outside. I estimate that it has the support of 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the population.
The Bill specifies the purposes for which the profits might be used. It is drawn widely, but it includes one category of medical research which was the number one priority which led me to look seriously at this idea and give it my support. One recognises that money itself does not solve the problem of disease. It is accepted that merely making more money available does not necessarily mean that the research will be either worthwhile or successful. But the fact remains that worthwhile areas of medical research are gravely hampered by the lack of funds. If that is not so, one wonders why so many charitable organisations with a specific interest in and responsibility for such matters as research into cancer and leukemia spend so much time and money canvassing for public support.
Knowing that such a need exists, anyone who opposes the Bill must have an uneasy conscience and owes it to himself to examine the matter very seriously and carefully. He owes it to himself to consider whether in opposing the Bill he is not doing something which is detrimental to the cause of medical research.

§ Mr. Thomas Cox (Wandsworth, Central)
I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber are sympathetic to what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he not think that the vast 886 sums of money which successive Governments spend on projects which many people regard as a waste of public funds should, instead, be diverted to deal with the issues which my hon. Friend has in mind instead of their having to rely on subscriptions in the form of public lotteries?

§ Mr. Tinn
It is not for me to expect some dramatic change in the pattern of Government spending which would free resources from the purposes which my hon. Friend regards as less worth while and devote them to these which I have in mind. I have no responsibility for that. What I am doing is something unusual. I am not suggesting new ways in which money can be spent without suggesting a new way in which it can be arranged. That does not make my proposal unique, but it does mean that this is one of those rarer parliamentary occasions, and I hope that for that reason if for no other the Government will give it their blessing.
One of the commonest charges against the suggestion of a national lottery is that experience abroad shows it to be costly and wasteful. We are told that administrative costs eat up too large a proportion of the funds subscribed and too little money is left for prizes and for beneficial purposes.
Costs vary widely over a large number of such schemes operating in many countries. Only two of these national lottery schemes abroad have costs of over 20 per cent. of the turnover. I would not have thought that was an unreasonably high proportion. For instance, in Sweden the administrative costs, including the payment of commission to 4,500 local agents who help to operate the scheme, amounts to only 2 per cent. of the gross revenue.
Sometimes criticism is made that for the Government, the State or Parliament to accept a proposal such as this would achieve an increase in total gambling which might be regarded as objectionable even by the House which has in the past accepted a general principle in the form of savings bonds and a betting levy. I do not think we have a great deal of evidence that people now have such a significant amount of free money that up to now they have not been able to find any way of using but which they 887 will suddenly begin to spend on a national lottery, drawing into gambling people who have not previously engaged in it. Certainly it will raise fresh money and it has to come from somewhere. But a national lottery would compete very successfully with existing forms of gambling and would have the merit, which the other forms do not, that the proceeds would be devoted to the categories of public service which I have broadly outlined in the Bill.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)
I am interested in the argument but would my hon. Friend not recollect that the same response was made to that argument in the course of the debate about premium bonds? None the less, huge sums are now invested in premium bonds without diminution in the total amount that has gone into other forms of gambling.

§ Mr. Tinn
The element of gambling connected with premium bonds is very small. The premium bond appeals to a different kind of person, not to the traditional gambler. I would have thought that the criticism that the total amount of gambling might increase would be more applicable to premium bonds which tend to go to people who do not normally contribute to football pools and that sort of thing. My proposal would compete directly with these more traditional and more widespread forms of gambling rather than creating a new demand.

§ Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)
I was not here at the start of the hon. Member's speech and for that I apologise. Would not his Bill compete with the football pools on Merseyside?

§ Mr. Tinn
Frankly, the answer is "Yes". The hon. Member represents a Merseyside seat and naturally will form his opinion accordingly. Who can blame him? The whole point of my argument is that proceeds may well be drained from the football pools, but they would be applied, as the pools do not apply them, not to profits to shareholders but to the beneficial purposes outlined in the Bill.

§ Sir Stephen McAdden (Southend, East)
The hon. Member has used some hard words about those who might oppose the Bill. He said that they should 888 search their consciences before they voted against it, because of the worthy objectives to which the money, if raised, would be devoted. Some of those who might genuinely and sincerely oppose the Bill may already be subscribing to those causes.

§ Mr. Tinn
Of course, but the fact that one makes a subscription to such a cause does not entitle the subscriber to deny such causes an additional source of revenue, at least, not without examining his conscience and the logic of the argument.
I turn to an argument strongly advanced when a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in Committee on a Finance Bill that there should be a national lottery, although he did not specify the purposes to which the money would be applied. He simply asked the House for a decision on the general principle. The decision of the House was in the negative, many speakers, including supporters of my own Bill, not being prepared to give the Chancellor a blank cheque without having the names of any of the beneficiaries written into the Bill. That is a point of view that I accept.
Another and even more strongly argued criticism, particularly from my own side of the House, was that it was absolutely wrong that in a mature society, with a conscience and with responsibility towards its citizens, such necessary and worthwhile causes should be dependent upon the chance of a lottery, that if the needs were there, they should be met through taxation rationed out. that that was the more rational approach. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friends indicate that this proposition is attractive, but anyone who takes that view must be prepared to say why it is that so many needs still go unmet. Indeed, by this definition we are not yet a mature society, because not all needs are met. It would verge on hypocrisy to take the view that in order to pretend that we match up to this definition, this high-principled definition of a mature society, we should refuse this alternative means of raising money.
We all know the public reaction to increased taxation. Every hon. Member and every member of the public is prepared time and again to suggest new causes that should be supported by public 889 funds, but rarely if ever is he prepared to agree, with any degree of enthusiasm to say the least, to the necessary taxation.
A merit of my proposal is that it is a form of voluntary taxation. People do not have to indulge in it if they do not want to do so. If they indulge, they would receive value for money, or they would cease to indulge. I am not a puritan about this and I see no great virtue in some sort of Spartan approach which says that paying must hurt, that finding money for worthy causes is somehow disreputable if it is done painlessly. I cannot understand that line of argument Certainly I should have an uneasy conscience if I followed that line while all around me I could see areas in which needs were entirely unmet from public funds. But even as public expenditure increases, as the public conscience is prepared to authorise such expansion in one direction or another there will always be a number of unfilled needs which will reveal themselves.

§ Mr. Jeffrey Archer (Louth)
I have read the Bill carefully. The hon. Gentleman has pointed out how he would like the money spent. Is it not the case that every hon Member bringing in such a Bill would have a clause in it on how he would like the money spent? I would like to see the money spent on the arts and the hon. Gentleman would like it spent on medical research. But surely this takes a responsibility off the Government, which would be a bad thing because a Minister could say about a matter where there was need for public expenditure, "But this is the responsibility of the national lottery and not of the Government."

§ Mr. Tinn
One can hardly say that against a national lottery which does not yet exist. I do not accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman because my proposal is that the lottery would be administered by an independent board, set up by the Minister but operating independently. The board would judge where to disburse the funds. I am sure that its members would be perfectly able to assess the various claims for funds and would also have the judgment to recognise any risk of simply easing the burden of the Treasury. But even easing the burden of the Treasury should not be 890 regarded as essentially wrong in itself. In certain circumstances it might be worth while. I do not support the point of view which regards some assistance to the relief of general taxation as being inherently wrong.

§ Sir S. McAdden
But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that many of these charities are already running their own lotteries?

§ Mr. Tinn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to deal with a point which I might not otherwise have been able to touch on because of the time. The question is whether the position of local lotteries or raffles run by churches, clubs and other organisations would be damaged by this proposal. The motive for buying tickets in small local lotteries is entirely different. It contains much more the element of deliberate subscription to a worthy cause than the hope of winning a cake, or a box of chocolates or a bottle of whisky, or whatever might be offered. The competition of a national lottery organised on a massive scale would be directed much more effectively against the large-scale forms of gambling and would not in my belief do any damage to the smaller charities.

§ Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North)
I am trying to follow the argument. What evidence has my hon. Friend for his case? Let us take, for example, the Irish hospitals sweepstake lottery, which sells tickets on an international scale. Has my hon. Friend evidence to suggest that the Irish hospital service is as good as ours or as good as any financed by Governments? Is he advocating this kind of departure from our traditional forms of spending?

§ Mr. Tinn
I am not proposing that we should begin to finance the National Health Service from a national lottery. I am trying to make the point that there is an area of need which, though perhaps not so fundamental as the National Health Service, is still worth while and important. Some areas of that need are as urgent as medical research, which I specified as being a worthwhile objective. Many other worthwhile causes do not at present qualify for support from public funds. It is worth while to consider a change in the source of finance 891 for such causes. I do not see a national lottery as an alternative source of finance for the National Health Service.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle)
I agree that there are many good causes which need money. I do not find it unreasonable that they should get part of their proceeds from such matters as the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, will he apply his mind to how it is to be decided how to allocate the proceeds of a lottery amongst the various charities and demands that he has mentioned?

§ Mr. Tinn
That is a fair question. Obviously specialists would have to be chosen—perhaps including some with a knowledge of medical research—to assist. Distinguished people, some of whom are so ready to serve on various Royal Commissions and committees of inquiry, would have to be chosen. Each person would have to be selected because of his experience or knowledge of a possible area of benefit. The remaining members of the board would be drawn from the ranks of those that are gifted administratively—namely, those with promotional and advertising skill, and those with experience in commerce.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
I am sorry that my hon. Friend's speech has been peppered with interventions. Why is it more desirable that we should appoint a board to determine a sensible order of priorities rather than have the Government carry out that function on the basis of a rational approach to the whole problem of the needs of the social service? Why should not the case be put before the public? Why should not the public be asked to accept an increase in taxation to deal with these deficiencies?

§ Mr. Tinn
How lovely that is in theory. How can that point be made with any seriousness? I know that people write to hon. Members and demand that nurses should be paid more, and that more should be given to various causes. Nevertheless, an increase in taxation would be resisted. No one pays tax with a ready heart. That is a political implication that no Government, Labour or Conservative, can ever forget entirely. No Government will ever be able fully to satisfy the needs which have to be met, because of their knowledge and recog- 892 nition of the consequences that would flow during elections.
If a high principled and rationally applied order of priorities was put forward, without regard to the impact that it would have on the ordinary taxpayer—

§ Mr. Thomas Cox
rose—

§ Mr. Tinn
I think that I have been over-generous already.
Even if my Bill does not meet with support from the Government, I hope that they will at least recognise the worthwhile nature of the general principles that it contains and consider bringing forward their own proposals.

§ Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)
I am worried about the unemployment situation on Merseyside. Before giving a Second Reading to the Bill we should consider how many people on Merseyside are employed in the pools, which are a form of national lottery.