REGULATIONS AS TO THE PROMOTION OF LOTTERIES

HC Deb 28 April 1993 vol 223 cc1048-52

Mr. Pendry

I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 5, line 36, at end insert— '() the use which may be made in advertising and promotion of reference to charitable causes which may be likely to receive moneys from lottery proceeds;'. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State include specifically the possibility of the imposition of requirements or restrictions on the use of images or other materials derived from the charity sector in the advertising or promotion of the national lottery. The Secretary of State gave an assurance on Second Reading that the national lottery would be marketed as a lottery and not as a charitable enterprise. That assurance can only be welcomed. However, I am glad that the Secretary of State is in his place because I want to point out to him that his statements relating to the issue appear to be contradictory.

The Secretary of State said that the lottery—[Interruption.] The rugby crowd are in. The Secretary of State said that the lottery would attract those interested in having a flutter who would also contribute to a good cause. He thus appeared to acknowledge that the good cause element would encourage more people to participate in the lottery. That was confirmed—I am sure that the Secretary of State is all ears as I proceed with the argument —by the findings of the NOP survey commissioned by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Some 24 per cent. of those questioned said that their main reason for purchasing national lottery tickets would be to make a donation to a good cause. That research clearly shows that the term "good causes" is identified in the public mind with charities.

9.30 pm

There is a potential danger, therefore, that, unless there exist specific controls on the ways in which the lottery may be promoted, it will be promoted using captions and images that are likely to mislead the public. The NOP research shows —and other research studies confirm these findings—that projects that meet people's urgent needs, such as those assisting the elderly and the disabled, are more popular causes than sports, arts or heritage. The lottery operators may therefore be tempted to use images of charitable organisations in their advertising material.

Lottery operators could, for example, use to a disproportionate degree in their promotional material images of famine relief work undertaken by organisations such as Oxfam or the work of organisations such as Help the Aged, recognising that images of starving children or isolated elderly people will be more likely to encourage people to buy tickets than images of sports stadiums or restored monuments.

Although the Minister gave an undertaking in Committee that the amount of stake money available for good causes would be included on the ticket, that will not rule out lottery advertising of a nature that encourages the public to slide into the assumption that a greater proportion of lottery proceeds than is actually the case will be passed on to good causes, and to charities in particular. If that happens, it will have a serious effect on charitable donation incomes, as people will feel that they have given to a charity when they buy a lottery ticket and will therefore be less inclined to give directly to charity.

There is also the issue of the sort of images of charity work that are used in advertising material. A number of charities have made efforts to ensure that their work is presented to the public in a way that does not patronise or offend the groups of people for whom they are working. It will be important that those promoting the lottery obtain the advice of charities on how to present their work and develop good practice. That is especially important, as the advertising budget for the national lottery is likely to rival that of some of our largest corporations.

The Minister may respond by saying that our anxieties are unnecessary because the Advertising Standards Authority would be able to address such problems if they arose. The ASA has a responsibility to monitor advertisements and investigate complaints if advertising material is not legal, decent, honest or truthful. We are arguing not that the lottery promoter will make unfair claims about what proportion of the lottery proceeds will go to good causes but that lottery promotion may be of a nature that encourages the public to believe that charities will benefit more from the lottery that is actually the case. That is more intangible and difficult to monitor than the making of false claims.

Although the ASA would have a role in monitoring and responding to anxieties that lottery advertising implied exaggerated claims, we should prefer the Government to give a commitment to prepare and consult on regulations imposing restrictions on the use of charities in lottery promotion material. On the issue of the presentation of charitable work in lottery advertising, the ASA would provide some, but not sufficient, protection.

The ASA responds to complaints that advertising has caused grave or widespread offence. Therefore, it would only offer protection in some of the more extreme cases to charities anxious about how their work was being presented to the public. Although we appreciate the good work of the ASA, we consider it vital that the Government introduce specific regulations covering the way in which the lottery uses good causes in its promotional material.

The question of lottery advertising is important to charities, as I am sure the Minister will agree. The way in which the lottery is promoted will directly affect the income of the voluntary sector and will also have an impact on the public's perception of the work of charities. I therefore hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment and, in consultation with the charities, to consider further the restrictions that should be placed on the use of charities in lottery promotional material.

Mr. Alan Howarth

I have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) in moving the amendment, but I fear that considerable problems of definition and practicality will be involved in the achievement of that objective. I wonder whether the right way to achieve such restraints on detrimental advertising is not through contracts with operators rather than through the Bill.

As my hon. Friend the Minister considers the amendment, I invite him to reflect on the desirability of taking steps to ensure that the national lottery cannot advertise in terms that are effectively disparaging of small charities' lotteries. That will be very important in relation to scratch cards where the competition will be intense.

The national lottery will have available to it the saturating power of large-scale advertising backed by very big money. It is extremely important that the lottery should not abuse that position by suggesting to members of the public that they can win only peanuts if they buy a ticket in a charity lottery, while they can win a massive jackpot in the national lottery. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point.

Mr. Cryer

It would be a good idea to incorporate the provisions in the amendment into the Bill. The power for the Secretary of State is not mandatory, it is permissive. Clause 12(1) states that the Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision", and clause 12(2) states: Such regulations may in particular impose requirements or restrictions". The Bill does not state that the Secretary of State shall impose the restrictions. The power is permissive. It is all very well for Ministers and others to talk about the existing provisons for curbing false and misleading advertising, but it takes time to implement those provisions.

If the Secretary of State is given a permissive power on the face of the Bill, he can say that if the national lottery pursues particular practices as it promotes itself which are detrimental to small lotteries, such as the lottery promoted by Bradford rugby league club at Odsal stadium, the Secretary of State can say that he will introduce regulations fairly quickly. As the Minister is aware, regulations can be introduced very rapidly.

The regulations to which I am referring relate to the negative procedure. They can be stopped only if they are prayed against or if a revocation motion is made subsequently. The power is in the Secretary of State's hands. Knowing the object and aim of our debates, the Minister can bear our comments in mind and, if he sees abuse of the sort described tonight, he will feel bound to introduce regulations, and that will probably be sufficient to stop the abuse and exploitation which would militate against the good causes for which many local lotteries already seek to provide.

As has often been said, the national lottery will be disruptive. The national lottery will be new on the scene and it will cause many difficulties for local lotteries and for existing organisations such as the pools promoters. If that is so, the Government have a duty to provide protection for small lotteries. The amendment offers a means of incorporating that protection on the face of the Bill.

It would be extraordinary if the Minister were to reject the opportunity to have reserve powers which may never be used. If the Minister is right, they might never be used. However, if he is wrong, the powers will be contained in the legislation ready for him to operate and so end any difficulties that might occur.

Mr. Key

I believe that this is the first occasion that I have heard the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) urging a Minister to take a permissive power to himself. My initial reaction is that there must be something wrong here. I will have to resist the temptation to accept the amendment.

However, not for the first time, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has made an important contribution to the debate. I detect that his thinking on the advertising and promotion of the national lottery has moved on since the Committee stage, as has ours. We have made progress in the past five or six weeks. We have talked to a good many people about the issue, because it is clearly very important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon is right: the establishment of a national lottery should not denigrate smaller lotteries, nor should such a lottery seek to market itself in a way that detracts from the success of local or charitable lotteries. One way of safeguarding against that is to market the national lottery with its own logo, thus making it clear to purchasers of tickets that they are entering that lottery.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is right to say that we should consult the charities, and other beneficiaries of the lottery, about the most appropriate way of promoting their causes. However, it is clear from the experience of successful lotteries in other countries that productive marketing depends on a number of factors—in particular, the fun of participation and the prospect of winning. The benefit gained by a good cause is a non-specific seondary effect, which serves as a non-specific reinforcement but is not a principal stimulus that can be exploited as a marketing tool.

That is why the national lottery will be clearly differentiated from lotteries whose whole purpose is to raise money for specific causes. Such lotteries have the advantage of benefiting specific causes, which encourages people to participate; if they are sensible, they will capitalise on that when the national lottery is introduced.

If a lottery operator chose to market itself primarily on the basis of the good causes that it helped, it would have great difficulty finding an effective focus, given the wide variety of causes that would benefit. Such a campaign might lead to considerable under-performance by the lottery and the director general would then become interested in what a cursory look at lotteries abroad would suggest was an inept strategy.

I am reluctant to accept the amendment. It is too specific and not in keeping with the broad enabling thrust of the Bill. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde for his important contribution to the debate. We have now reached a stage in dealing with the details of the Bill which means that we have time to get it right and we shall consider the hon. Gentleman's proposals over the next year.

We shall bear in mind the problem that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. I hope that he will not press the amendment; I believe that we can achieve his objective in a better way.

Mr. Pendry

As I am sure the Minister would expect, I found his reply rather disappointing. However, I believe that the issue is likely to be raised in the other place; I also take on board the Minister's assurance that the position will be monitored over the next year. He can rest assured that we shall do the same.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.