§ '.—It shall be a condition of the licence granted to the body corporate to administer the National Lottery that its headquarters shall be established in an area which can demonstrate that it has suffered or will suffer job losses directly attributable to the establishment of the Lottery that it shall remain there for the period of the licence; and that a majority of the full and part-time staff employed shall live within the travel-to-work area in which the office is established.'.—[Mr. Alton.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Alton
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members will recall that when we debated the private Member's Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) for a national lottery, the chief concern of many hon. Members with constituencies in Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and London was about the impact that such a measure would have on the existing football pools industry. Given that this issue was debated strongly on Second Reading and that hon. Members with Liverpool constituencies in particular repeatedly voiced their concern about the impact on employees of football pool companies, especially Littlewoods and Vernons on Merseyside, but also Zetters in London, the House will not be surprised that we are returning once more to this issue.
981 4.45 pm
It would be wrong for the House not to understand the depth of feeling of those who represent areas in which there is already high unemployment. Instead of people saying, "You're simply crying wolf," they should at least listen to what the football pools companies have said. I shall not again burden the House for long with the arguments, but I remind hon. Members of what each of the companies has said. In a letter to The Times, Mr. Paul Zetter said:the choice is stark: football pools or a national lottery. You will readily understand why I oppose a national lottery.Malcolm Hughes, the managing director of Vernons, said:It is not possible to find an example anywhere in the world of a National Lottery and a Pools industry thriving side by side.Malcolm Davidson, the managing director of Littlewoods, quoted from a letter to Littlewoods from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte which said:A UK national lottery would effectively kill off the football pools within a period of weeks … A successful national lottery would act as a substitute for the football pools … as a result of this the level of employment within the industry will be dramatically reduced.The House will not be surprised to hear that hon. Members who represent people employed in the football pools industry are pressing the case that, should it be proved that there has been a loss of jobs in areas where people are employed in the football pools industry, one of those areas should be chosen as the place where the headquarters of the new national lottery is set up.
The football pool companies believe that 6,000 jobs could ultimately be at stake as a direct result of the establishment of the national lottery. At a time of high unemployment in the country generally, most of us would be cautious about doing anything that might endanger existing jobs. We should not gamble with people's livelihoods.
In addition to the 6,000 people whose jobs may be at stake, there are some 70,000 football pools collectors who rely on the small amounts of money that they make to supplement their income—or their benefits, if they are unemployed. A very small number of jobs will be created by the national lottery. In Germany, 180 people run the whole of the national lottery scheme. We are not, therefore, talking about substitute jobs that would make up for all the jobs that may be lost as a result of introducing the national lottery.
The Minister will say that new jobs may be created in a number of other industries, but those industries may not be in areas where jobs have been lost as a direct consequence of the establishment of the national lottery. I draw the attention of the House to the letter which Mr. John Griffith, the editor of the Liverpool Echo, sent to the Prime Minister. He wrote:I am writing to you on behalf of almost one million readers of the Liverpool Echo to seek a pledge that Liverpool can be the first winner of the proposed National Lottery.I believe Liverpool is the right place to base this exciting new venture, and that an early decision to choose Liverpool would prove a great boost to the image and morale of the city.As you will know, the National Lottery plan has prompted real fears about its impact on the thousands of pools jobs on Merseyside.But the region is often encouraged to be positive, and I am convinced that we would prove the perfect base for a project that would clearly command national attention.We have a proven track record as the football pools capital of the country. We have demonstrated that such competitions 982 can be run from Liverpool efficiently and successfully. We have all the infrastructure to make a Liverpool-based National Lottery a great success.That is right. The expertise that Vernons and Littlewoods have developed over the years shows that the city has precisely the experience required to administer a national lottery. What better location could there be than Liverpool, which has earned so much respect for having administered the football pools so well and efficiently for many years?
The Government would be well advised to recognise the fears of communities such as mine. They should understand the worry that it is a matter not merely of pin money but of livelihoods. Very often, it is women who are employed in these jobs. More than 70,000 people are unemployed in the Liverpool area, so hon. Members representing Merseyside are not raising a trivial issue. If we are proved wrong, no one will be happier than those hon. Members.
I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will be able to tell the House a year from now that no jobs were lost in the football pools and that the two schemes were able to co-exist. No one would be happier than I if that should prove to be the case but, if it is not, the Secretary of State and the Minister should at least consider ways in which the communities that suffer as a direct result of the introduction of a national lottery might be helped. Surely that is elementary justice.
Expertise and experience in running such projects should be rewarded. Baroness Thatcher—dare one mention her name to Conservative Members these days?—opened Vernons' offices in Liverpool two or three years ago. I vividly remember her paying tribute to the efficiency and determination of that company. It must be recognised that our community has a special expertise, which is why we have tabled new clause 4.
I hope that the new clause will commend itself to the Minister, if only as a marker. If he cannot accept it, perhaps he will accept that the lottery should be established, not in an area with relatively low unemployment, but somewhere which has a reputation for running football pools, which has the necessary expertise and experience and which could prove that it has suffered as a direct consequence of the establishment of a national lottery.
§ Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton)
I am sure that you will recollect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the pools companies' worry about a national lottery was a thread which ran through our Second Reading debate and our early deliberations in Committee and recurred later when we discussed the exact topic.
It is right and proper that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) should express the worries of his constituents and others on Merseyside, but I cannot accept the principle of including in the Bill such a specific tying of hands of the promoter by saying that the whole lottery should be run from Liverpool or, indeed, Scotland or south Wales where the pools companies also have bases.
We could all outline worries in our constituencies about jobs that have been lost. Indeed, in Kingston upon Thames in my area a large British aerospace factory has closed with the loss of several thousand jobs. The hon. Gentleman's Liberal colleagues on Kingston upon Thames council would be proud of me if I said that I should like the national lottery headquarters to be established in 983 Kingston upon Thames, as would my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in whose constituency that factory was located. However, I am not saying that, because the promoters of the lottery should be able to site their headquarters where they think fit and where they think it will be run most efficiently. Of course, at this stage, we do not know who the promoters will be.
In early correspondence, the Pools Promoters Association said that it did not like the idea of a lottery but that, if the Government and the House in due course accepted the idea, it might be interested in promoting it. Perhaps the pools companies will very soon have the chance to make their case, and that would be one way to bring the whole operation to Merseyside. If the pools companies are not successful, the eventual lottery promoters must have the freedom to site their operation where they wish.
I repeat what I said on Second Reading and probably also in Committee: I do not believe that the pools companies will suffer from the introduction of a national lottery. I have known for a long time that the pools companies are highly innovative and efficient and dedicated to their enterprise. They will do what is necessary to keep the pools running. Italy has a similar ethos of football fanaticism and the pools and a lottery run happily alongside each other there. I do not accept that the pools companies will suffer as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and others have suggested, so I cannot support the new clause.
§ Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North)
I must take issue with the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). Without giving one shred of empirical evidence to support his case, he asserted that the pools companies and, by implication, jobs, will not suffer as a result of the introduction of the national lottery. All of the empirical evidence from various studies carried out by reputable academic bodies and others suggests that jobs will be lost if a lottery is introduced. The number of jobs lost depends on how the lottery scheme will work but estimates for Merseyside alone range from 3,500, 4,000, 5,000 and up to 6,000. That evidence is available to hon. Members if only they cared to read it.
Against that background, hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies and constituencies across Merseyside—people sometimes cross local government boundaries to find work—believe that we have a very strong case. In Committee, those of us worried about jobs in the pools industry believe that improvements were made to the Bill which will probably reduce the job losses contingent on the introduction of a national lottery.
I made a quick calculation this afternoon and I suspect that the number of jobs lost is likely to be between 1,000 and 1,500 rather than the 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 mentioned earlier. However, we are still talking about a considerable number. There is no logical reason why, if Merseyside is to suffer job losses, we cannot ask the House to specify in the Bill that the lottery headquarters should be sited in Liverpool.
I support the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in one further contention. Many right hon. and hon. Members feel that the job is the sort of job that anybody anywhere in the country could do without too much difficulty. However, quite complex technology is 984 involved in the pools industry; for example, familiarity is required with working with different types of papers. It is quite a skilful sphere of work. From that point of view, Merseyside is suitable, in that many—although I hope not too many—people who have lost their jobs as a result of the national lottery may be available. That makes it an attractive site. If I may put in a particular plea, I can tell the House that if Knowsley were considered as a possible site, we could find suitable premises at a reasonable rent, or even for purchase.
To return to our more serious argument, I agree that if gambling in this country were conducted in an entirely free market, it would be unfair to make a specification such as that in the new clause, which my Merseyside colleagues and I support. It would be unfair to say that the national lottery should be located on Merseyside or in another area that may suffer. However, the market is not totally free. Legislation has had to be introduced to enable the national lottery to be established. Rightly, gambling is a controlled activity. The market is not free, so if it is not unreasonable to specify limitations on gambling I do not see why it should be considered unreasonable to say which area should gain in terms of jobs and of the economic activity that will be generated.
For those reasons, I hope that the Government and other hon. Members will accept that we are not whingeing or moaning and that we feel that there is a genuine case to be made. I hope that if the measure is defective in some way, at least the spirit of our argument will be accepted and taken up, because we feel that we have a powerful case.
§ Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay)
I give my qualified support to new clause 4. It is entirely acceptable that the headquarters of the national lottery should be in an area of high unemployment; that is a laudable objective. My concern, and the reason why I said that my support was qualified, centres on the hypothesis on which the new clause is based—that job losses will be suffered as a result of the introduction of the national lottery.
Certainly the headquarters of the national lottery should be in an area of high unemployment but, rather accepting the hypothesis on which the new clause is based, may I suggest Torbay as a suitable site? As the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) rightly pointed out, complex technology will be involved and a high degree of sophistication will be needed in the personnel who will operate the equipment. However, a minor flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that it is based on the hypothesis that there will be job losses in the pools industry. It would be unreasonable for the Government to move the headquarters of the national lottery to somewhere where the job losses have not yet taken place.
In Torbay we can offer immediate office accommodation and highly qualified personnel. Of course, Torbay also enjoys beaches, an advantage which Knowsley does not enjoy, although it has many other advantages. Torbay would certainly be an ideal location.
§ Mr. Howarth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way to me and for the courtesy with which he has introduced his partisan argument about his constituency. Like the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), he rejects what he calls the hypothesis that there will be job losses, but he has yet to produce a shred of empirical evidence to counter our argument.
§ Mr. Allason
That is not how the Government can proceed. The Government cannot move the national lottery headquarters in anticipation of job losses. Let us suppose that, in the best of all worlds, there were no job losses and that people were attracted to the pools instead, so that more personnel had to be taken on by the establishments in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman would then be at something of a disadvantage, having tempted the national lottery headquarters to move to his constituency, because there might not be enough qualified people there to fill the job vacancies created. I am trying to free the Government from such a dilemma. In Torbay, the accommodation is immediately available.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North made an important point when he said that the national lottery headquarters could be based anywhere. In connection with the next steps agencies initiative taken by the Government, I had hoped that the chief executives of the new agencies intended to move their expensive headquarters buildings from the centre of London and the west end out into the provinces where there is a real need for jobs and where qualified personnel and office space are available. Furthermore, there is a better way of life in the provinces than in central London.
Alas, a rather worrying example has already been set by some of the next steps agencies. For example, instead of moving from near Heathrow to a site further afield and taking up existing accommodation, air traffic control has moved to what is arguably the most expensive green field site in leafy Hampshire. That seems to undermine the object of the next steps initiative.
I urge the new administration of the national lottery seriously to consider placing the new headquarters establishment somewhere in the provinces that can demonstrate high unemployment. After all, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North said, modern technology makes it irrelevant where the headquarters is sited. With fibre-optic cables and so on, the organisation does not have to be in the centre of London.
I regret that my previous plea for resiting major national establishments—to relocate MI5 from the west end to Torquay—was overlooked. I do not know why my idea was overlooked; it seems a crying shame that MI5 is to be relocated instead in Thames house, just down the road from the House. That is an extremely expensive location—although I discover that the enterprise is only 70 per cent. over budget.
I could give pretty firm undertakings about the kind of accommodation and the low costs that we could offer the staff of the national lottery if they were to consider moving to Torbay. Bearing in mind some of the replies to Environment questions this afternoon, I can give several other guarantees, including clean beaches and clean bathing waters.
§ Mr. Ashton
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. 986 Davies) and I went to the headquarters of the national lotteries in New York and in Washington and found that they are about as big as the Tea Room? They employ about 50 people. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for people to go to Torquay there are thousands of gipsies in the north of England and gipsy sites are badly needed. I am sure that the gipsies would be glad to go to Torquay and enjoy all the benefits of the beaches. Would the hon. Gentleman like to offer them a chance of accommodation?
§ Mr. Allason
We are prepared to accommodate almost everybody, but the trouble with Torquay is that it does not have an awful lot of green spaces for gipsies to park their caravans on. We should be perfectly willing to consider any other suggestion, and we should certainly like to point out that we have a great deal of empty office accommodation in Torquay, and that we are open to offers. I offer here and now to any of the next steps agencies' chief executives who may be in the Strangers Gallery that they will have a warm welcome in Torquay; indeed, we have better weather than almost anywhere else in the country.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue with this advertisement because it seems to be going very wide of the new clause.
§ Mr. Allason
I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that you will receive a very warm welcome in Torbay if you visit us.
§ Mrs. Jane Kennedy
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is absolutely right. The headquarters of the national lottery can be sited anywhere in the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or the world."]—or indeed, anywhere in the world. Opposition Members are pleading with the Government to take on board the case made in Committee and again today: that, whatever they think should happen in an ideal world, we have to live in the real world. Those of us who represent seats in Liverpool, Cardiff and Glasgow know without any shadow of a doubt that although we do not know how many jobs will go, there will be job losses.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said that he was sure that the pools companies were innovative enough to develop ways in which they would be able to compete with the national lottery and survive. That may or may not be the case. On behalf of the workers of those companies—I know that different interests are involved in the matter—I make the point that the number of workers in the pools industry will be reduced as a result of that competition. Anyone who studies the case carefully will conclude that that is bound to happen.
§ Mr. Nigel Evans
We are talking about a small number of jobs. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is far better for every assistance to be given to the promoter to ensure that the national lottery is a success and that as much money as possible is raised to go into the good causes? Does she agree that the extra jobs created, many of which will come into the north-west in any event, will be far better than just dictating that the national lottery headquarters should go to the north-west? It may not be as successful as it would otherwise have been.
§ Mrs. Kennedy
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) advanced a useful and interesting argument 987 about competition in Committee. He said that a healthy and competitive pools industry would be good for the national lottery, as would the small lottery and the other lotteries that we talked about today. However, there is no doubt that we are speculating about how successful the national lottery will be. We argue that the new clause represents one way in which the Government can guarantee a return to the areas that we know will lose out. People in Liverpool, Glasgow and Cardiff will lose their jobs.
If you will permit, Madam Deputy Speaker, the best way in which I can illustrate my point is to read to the House a poem that I received today from a pools worker. It is a cry from the heart and a plea to the House to reject the Bill entirely. It is very relevant to our debate because it illustrates better than I can the feelings of pools workers. The lady has entitled her poem, "My job! My job! My Kingdom for my Job." She says:Lottery technology, my job is insecure,Those above won't listen as my job goes out the door. For eighteen years I've given it, the best that I can give.Without my job and wages, however will I live?So, the lottery will create jobs, well, bravo! That's just fine.But what about the redundant souls?Remember one of them is mine!It will take a fraction of the work force to run the lottery And a fraction of the work force too, with today's technology.So what happens to the excess? They're not needed any more,They end up just statistics and become a newstime bore.Its time for us to stand and fight, if fighting is what it takes.So please, come on, get off your buttsAnd squash it for our sakes.I trust, Madam Deputy Speaker, that "butts" is parliamentary language. It fitted in with the rhyme.
I urge the Minister when he considers the arguments put today to take seriously the spirit in which they are made. I believe that the Government have accepted in part the case made to allow to a certain extent for unfair competition between the lottery and the pools. In doing so, they have recognised that there will he an impact on employment in the industry. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he replies.
§ Mr. David Amess (Basildon)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on moving new clause 4 and on giving us the opportunity to debate the siting of the headquarters for the national lottery. I apologise for missing his opening remarks. Proceedings moved on somewhat more quickly than I had expected.
I understand entirely why Liverpool Members have made a plea for the siting of the headquarters there. For me, the obvious siting for the national headquarters in Basildon. I say that because my constituency is of national and international note. Over the past two or three years, Opposition Members have rightly worried themselves about the level of unemployment in my constituency.
§ Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the name of his constituency again?
§ Mr. Amess
In case the hon. Gentleman did not hear, it is the constituency of Basildon.
Opposition Members have worried about the level of unemployment in my constituency. There is no doubt that the impact of the economic slump which we have suffered over the past three years has been especially severe in the south-east.
§ Mr. Amess
And in the south-west, as my hon. Friend reminds me. We have lost many jobs in the construction sector and in service industries. People have been made redundant on a Friday and they have received no redundancy payments. In my constituency of Basildon, unemployment is roughly at the level it was when I won the seat 10 years ago and it is of great concern locally.
We want the national lottery to be the best lottery in the world. One way in which to ensure that is to make certain that it is placed in the town that is the most famous in the country. That town is Basildon. We have excellent communications along the A127 and A13. We are very near the channel tunnel. We enjoy excellent communications to Heathrow airport and to Stansted airport. Not only that, but the weather is quite clement.
We have the enthusiastic support of Essex county council. I believe that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill originated in Brentwood in Essex. Essex county council supports the bid to have the headquarters in Basildon, as does Basildon district council. It is important that where the headquarters is sited, the local population is enthusiastic about the whole concept of the national lottery. Of that there is no doubt. Basildon is totally committed to the national lottery. We enjoy a gamble. We believe that no job losses will be suffered in Liverpool because in Basildon we shall still fill in the football pools. We also very much want to participate in the national lottery.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the fact that Basildon wants to continue to lead the country to the economic recovery, which has clearly started. One way to ensure that is for people who are bidding for the headquarters to talk to me, to the county council and to the district council. We can offer a very good deal if they wish to site the headquarters in my constituency of Basildon.
§ Mr. Maxton
The frivolous way in which the last two Conservative Members who have spoken treated this very serious subject is outrageous. I am not necessarily 100 per cent. convinced by the arguments of those who say that there will be job losses in the pools industry, but they have a case. No Conservative Member who has spoken has made any attempt to answer the case that has been made by the pools industry and by those of my hon. Friends representing Liverpool constituencies. That is regrettable. I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on one thing only. He obviously believes that all his constituents are born gamblers. He is absolutely right: they would have to be, to elect him.
Having said all that, I must say that I have reservations about the new clause—first, because I do not think that it makes sense and, secondly, because I do not like the fact that it refers only to the headquarters of the national lottery and I feel that other offices related to the national lottery should also go to areas where employment may be affected by its establishment.
989 Moreover, I am not sure whether the new clause requires the headquarters to go to the area that suffers most as a result of the establishment of the national lottery. Liverpool Members might make the case that more employees are employed in the pools industry in Liverpool than anywhere else, but that does not mean that Liverpool will be the only area affected. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is suggesting that this should be the first criterion, I have some sympathy with his argument—
§ Mr. Alton
The new clause specifically refers to an area that can demonstrate its case. Zetters may well go completely out of business—as everyone knows, it is probably the most vulnerable of the companies. North Merseyside and, in particular, Knowsley, North will be affected if Vernons suffers most, whereas if Littlewoods suffers most, the effects could be felt in Glasgow, Cardiff or Liverpool. That is why the matter should be left open.
§ Mr. Maxton
That is exactly my point. The new clause hints that the area that is worst affected should get the headquarters. My view is that, if we are to take these matters into account at all, employment effects should be the first criterion or one of the criteria on the basis of which the Government consider where the headquarters and other offices of the national lottery should go.
I had originally thought that I would resist the temptation to follow the example of other hon. Members by making a special plea for my area. As Oscar Wilde might have said, "There is only one way to defeat temptation and that is to give in to it." I will therefore make a plea on behalf of Glasgow. Glasgow may well be one of the areas that will suffer, so it would be covered by the criteria suggested in the new clause. The excellent, imaginative and innovative Labour-controlled local authorities—Glasgow district council and Strathclyde regional council—have a track record.
§ Mr. Graham
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in this context, it is a bit of a misnomer to call the area Glasgow? Littlewoods is based in Renfrew, and Renfrew district council has been more than helpful to Littlewoods.
§ Mr. Maxton
Perhaps I should have said that all the excellent innovative Labour-controlled local authorities in Strathclyde have an excellent track record—despite the enormous problems put in their path by the Government—of attracting inward investment and putting together packages that allow office development, as has been shown recently with the Ministry of Defence, which we still hope will come to Glasgow. I hope that that track record will be borne in mind in siting the lottery headquarters.
§ Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Govan)
I support the new clause because it is important that we make it clear that we are interested in ensuring that jobs go to the areas that may suffer as a result of the national lottery. I understand why some Conservative Members find it impossible at this stage to accept that there will be any job losses at all, but many of us are not convinced by the argument that the lottery will result in a net increase in the number of jobs and in the amount of money spent on gambling.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), I deprecate the tone that has so far been adopted in the debate. Conservative Members 990 have understandably made pleas for their own areas but, in doing so, they have failed to pay sufficient regard to the very real anxiety felt by those in the pools industry.
In my area, there is substantial female unemployment, and female employment is provided by the pools industry in Hillington. Many of the ladies working in the industry have said to me that, if they lose their job, they will have little opportunity—at their age and with their skills—to find alternative employment in the surrounding area. Many of those women require their income because their husband is unemployed. In my view, it is not seemly for Conservative Members to mock the genuine anxieties that those people feel.
Notwithstanding the technical problems with the new clause, which I understand, the Government should make a commitment here and now that they will do what they can to ensure that any jobs that are generated—few though they may be—go to areas that will suffer as a result of the setting up of the national lottery. Such a statement will go a considerable way towards overcoming people's anxieties.
§ Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton)
I do not think that Conservative Members have been frivolous. They have merely revealed the nature of the modern Conservative party. They have substituted for the principle underlying the new clause—which seeks to bring employment to areas that are likely to suffer increased unemployment as a result of the introduction of the national lottery—the argument that the jobs should go to any area where unemployment has increased as a direct result of Government policy. We heard that argument from three Conservative Members today and from two in Committee. We have even heard how the Chancellor's constituency is suffering.
I have news for Conservative Members: there are 651 of us in the queue, and all of us have a good claim for saying that the unemployment problems in our areas—caused by the depredations of a decade or more under a Conservative Government who have pursued higher unemployment as a part of their economic strategy—should be tackled. It simply will not do for Conservative Members to suggest on the basis of special pleading that their constituencies have the right to be exempt from the consequences of Government policy. The Opposition are pointing to a specific area of Government policy—the introduction of the national lottery, which will have consequences for those employed in the pools industry. We are concerned about those communities and this is an exceedingly serious matter.
Let us not have a national lottery headquarters on the Conservative model—bright and brash and marble-tiled, like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which will be supremely attractive to visitors from overseas, who will nevertheless bring precious little money to it. Let us instead have a lottery office like those in the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) mentioned the visit that he and I made to the headquarters of the lottery in Washington. Like so many cities in the United States, the capital has rich and poor living close together. The rich parts of the city—including Capitol hill—are fringed by the poorest parts of the city because there is little town planning and because little effort has been made to save the city centre.
991 The lottery headquarters is located in the poorer quarters of the city for two reasons: first, the lottery provides jobs for the local community; and, secondly, it is the people's lottery. It is all very well the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) to suggest that the lottery will be patronised by their constituents—as it will be. The fact is that the vast majority of people purchasing lottery tickets will be people on lower incomes.
The lottery is a form of regressive taxation because its greatest appeal will be to those who have the least. Therefore, the lottery headquarters should be located in an area where it can serve the people best. If the lottery is to be a success, it must appeal across the board. The vast majority of people who will participate in the lottery will have fairly limited resources. As a small gesture towards employment policy, we should consider the regions that deserve the few jobs that the lottery will provide.
§ Mr. Kilfoyle
I do not have a great deal to add to what has been said today and what was said in Standing Committee where, as members of the Committee will be aware, we explored the issue fully.
The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made an aside from a sedentary position earlier to which I should like the Minister to reply. The hon. Member for South Hams said that the lottery headquarters could be located anywhere in the world. That is an interesting hypothetical proposition. Tattersalls is a very good lottery operator in Australia. If it is technically posible with electronic mail and similar technology for Tattersalls, with all its expertise, to bid to operate a lottery here, could our lottery be run from overseas—for example, from Europe or elsewhere? I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
§ Mr. Graham
All hon. Members are aware of my feelings about the national lottery. I would much have preferred to be here today arguing that the pools should continue as they are. However, I have received hundreds of letters from people who work in the pools industry. They believe that they are now facing the dole. I can understand that belief when we consider how pools companies in other countries have gone to the wall when lotteries were introduced in those countries.
It is unbelievable that Conservative Members are joining in the worst kind of lottery imaginable—the lottery for jobs. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is very fortunate that his constituency does not suffer the kind of unemployment that is raging throughout the country. Areas like Strathclyde and Merseyside are experiencing unbelievable and horrific levels of unemployment. The hon. Member for Basildon should come with me and speak to people who are on the dole in my area who have been working their butts off trying to get a job. Some of them have been unemployed for years. They look for work every day of every week.
The pools industry faces a catastrophe. Thousands of members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have already lost their jobs as a result of the recession and the economic situation created by the Government. If the Bill is passed, thousands more members of the USDAW will be on the dole.
992 In all fairness, I recognise the thinking behind the new clause. If there is to be a headquarters for the national lottery, we must bear in mind the thousands of people who face the dole. I understand that we are talking about the creation of about 100 jobs. I believe that one extra job in my constituency is worth fighting for. I am sure that my colleagues will accept that any jobs are welcome so long as we are increasing the number of jobs and not taking them away.
I saw Conservative Members smiling earlier. They will never see me smiling when folk face the dole. I was on the dole and I know what it is like. I know how important it is to work and to get a wage at the end of the week to pay the rent, mortgage and electricity bills. I have worked hard during my life and I have been on the dole. I have faced it and felt it.
§ Mr. Nigel Evans
Would the hon. Gentleman support the social chapter which would cost thousands of jobs in this country?
§ Mr. Graham
I am delighted to have your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I do not wish to join in the obscene bidding for Strathclyde, Merseyside or anywhere else. I hope that wisdom will prevail. I hope that the site of the headquarters will be determined after we have considered the areas in this country that face unemployment. Indeed, unemployment is still increasing in many areas.
I have examined the new clause. It may be important for us to be seen to argue for the headquarters to be located in an area that is suffering deprivation and unemployment. However, if the Bill had not been introduced, thousands of workers would be working away merrily and happily. They would still be picking up a wage at the end of the week. They would still be able to take the jobs that they need. They would still be sharing their wealth with the nation by paying their contributions to the tax system.
I agree reluctantly with the new clause. I plead with Conservative Members to consider the fact that the situation is of their making. Will the Minister please give us an assurance? Not long ago, it was said on the Floor of the House that thousands of jobs would not be lost as a result of the Bill. If hundreds of jobs are lost, will the Minister review the situation? Would he then come back to the House and tell us what he intends to do about it?
I sincerely hope that the Minister will genuinely consider the workers who possibly face the dole. When Ministers come to take the decision, I hope that they will consider the people on Merseyside. I believe fundamentally that the folk on Merseyside probably have a larger and more justified claim to have the headquarters located in their area than people anywhere else in the country. I am sure that none of my colleagues from Glasgow or Renfrew district would argue against the folk on Merseyside.
The hon. Member for Basildon is jocular. I may be entering into a similar spirit, but I do not know where Basildon is. However, I certainly know where the dole queues are and I know where they lead. They lead to a dismal life for millions of our people. I hope that the people of Basildon, like the people in my constituency, feel 993 that at the end of the day, the headquarters of the national lottery might provide a future and perhaps a new career for unemployed people.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been rather caught up today. I lost my hearing aid tonight and I cannot find it. However, some people will lose their jobs because of this Government and they will not be able to find new jobs.
§ Mr. Pendry
I, too, support the thrust of the new clause. Any objective person listening to the debate will have observed the contrast between some hon. Members' rather frivolous approach to the problem of unemployment and the attitude voiced by, for instance, my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and for Knowsley.
§ Mr. Pendry
I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). I accept that an important distinction is involved.
The able way in which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke to the new clause shows how deeply Opposition Members feel about the problem. Since the introduction of the Bill, they—along with some Conservative Members—have expressed great concern about the lottery's effect on employment levels in the pools industry.
As has already been pointed out, Liverpool, Cardiff, Glasgow and indeed London are the most vulnerable areas. Liverpool has a male unemployment rate of 20.8 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 15 per cent.; Cardiff has a male unemployment rate of 14.1 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 9.9 per cent.; Glasgow has a male unemployment rate of 15.5 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent Of course, those figures cannot in themselves convey the lack of personal esteem and social cohesion that was so graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde.
During the past few days, Conservative Members have claimed that the recession is now over; but it still seems very real for the 3 million people who are out of work, with no real chance of finding a job. All the three known reports that have investigated the effects of a national lottery on the pools industry have predicted a severe impact on employment. In many ways, the findings of the report by the GAH group seem the least pessimistic: according to The Guardian, it suggests that 1,100 pools jobs will be lost in Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and London. The Coopers and Lybrand report—commissioned by the pools promoters in response to the Government's White Paper last year—predicted the closure of Vernons and Zetters, and a 40 per cent reduction in Littlewoods' turnover.
Like other hon. Members, I accept that concessions made in Committee have gone some way towards establishing a more level playing field between the lottery and the pools industry. It remains the case, however, that the establishment of a lottery is likely to reduce employment—both those employed directly by the pools industry, who were cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and of part-time coupon collectors—in the absence of counterveiling employment creation measures. Surely it is fair to propose to give the areas that 994 will be most adversely affected by the lottery's introduction a better-than-average chance of housing its headquarters.
For those reasons, Labour Members accept the spirit of the new clause. I hope that the Minister will follow suit.
§ Mr. Key
I recognise the depth of feeling about this issue. One of the joys of the English language is that it allows people to express deep feelings, sometimes through anger and passion and sometimes through humour; on occasion, the dividing line is narrow. Although some of my hon. Friends—and, indeed, some Opposition Members—may have spoken with levity, no one should doubt that the current feelings about unemployment on Merseyside are registered and understood. Such feelings run deep in the House, as, of course, they do among all who face unemployment. As we are discussing the pools industry, should cite Strathclyde as well as Cardiff and London: all have sizeable populations involved in, or reliant on, the pools industry.
It is true that the new clause is very tightly drawn. I am sure that that was intended. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is difficult to see how so narrow and prescriptive a measure could fit comfortably in the Bill: I recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) drew our attention to the problems.
The fact is that we do not know what will happen to jobs in the pools industry; what we do know is that the lottery will create a number of jobs. Although only a modest number will be created in the headquarters, expect thousands to be generated nationwide in the operation of the lottery and in the supporting industries—computing, marketing, printing and the retail sector which will sell the tickets.
That, however, is not the burden of the argument, which is concerned with jobs on Merseyside. As I said in Committee, I understand the position very well: I would scarcely have spent my time in north America trying to persuade the Americans to invest in Liverpool if I did not consider Merseyside worthy of investment. As has been said, it has a good track record.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) made a strong speech, which was not devalued a jot by his constituency interest. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson)—who spoke eloquently in Committee—reminded us that we should look north of the border as well. That view was echoed by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), who, over the years, has established a reputation for sincerity in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made a sensible speech on behalf of his constituents. It would be wrong for any hon. Member representing the north of England to assume that the position in the south and west is not serious, as I discovered a couple of weeks ago during a tour of Devon and Cornwall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is right: we need to talk about a successful lottery that will generate more jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) pointed out that, if the headquarters were located in that town, we could be 995 certain of securing one of my ambitions—a very British lottery. As my hon. Friend said, Basildon is at the heart of Britain.
§ Mr. Maxton
With all due respect, I must defend my fellow Scots. I think that the Minister should have said "at the heart of England".
§ Mr. Key
Let us say "at the heart of the United Kingdom".
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) made a passionate speech. I am grateful to him for setting the debate in a wider context.
Technology being what it is, the lottery's headquarters could, of course, be located almost anywhere in the world, but I can reassure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that they will be located in the United Kingdom; otherwise, it would be extremely difficult to enforce licence conditions. It is normal throughout the world for lottery operators to be located in the country concerned.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) provided the touchstone of the debate. I congratulate her: I know that for many months she has worked tirelessly on this difficult issue on behalf of her constituents. She has always brought originality as well as fervour to our debates, and she did not let us down on this occasion, even including a touch of poetry. That is another joy of the English language, and I commend her constituent who composed the poem.
I appreciate the spirit behind the new clause, although I cannot back its premise that the national lottery will have a significant effect on unemployment in specific areas. I have said on many occasions that the effect of the national lottery on employment in the pools industry will depend on how the pools promoters choose to conduct their operations.
As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde remarked, we moved a long way in Committee on the problems confronting the pools industry. However, employment levels in the pools industry are steadily declining and I have not heard any guarantee that employment levels would be maintained if we did not introduce a national lottery. There is a problem of technology as well as the problem of the national lottery. Of course markets are not set in concrete. Pools operators throughout the world are restructuring to make their games more attractive. Now the pools industry in Britain has an opportunity to do a great deal more in modernising its regime as a result of the changes which we introduced in Committee.
I accept one aspect of the serious intent behind new clause 4. I accept that the siting of the headquarters and associated service components of the new national lottery represents a tremendous opportunity for jobs which many areas are keen to attract. Wherever the operator sets up —much of Oflot's operation would be likely to follow—the area chosen would benefit enormously from direct employment and the secondary benefits which that produces.
However, I cannot accept the new clause because it contains the wrong emphasis. We should also avoid inserting such a restrictive clause into the Bill and into modern legislation. I repeat the point that I made in Committee, that if I were a potential clause 5 operator, I would contact areas designated assisted areas and the 996 Department of Trade and Industry to learn about the many advantages intrinsic to those assisted areas and the many Government benefits available to companies which establish themselves there.
Many of the organisations which are interested in putting in a bid are looking at assisted areas with a view to setting up the headquarters and manufacturing the hardware for the lottery in those areas. That is most welcome. Merseyside development corporation, to name one excellent assisted area, has drawn up plans to offer potential operators every possible advantage and facility in setting up in Merseyside. Liverpool city council has also worked on the project. That is particularly welcome.
Many more areas have made such plans. It is not a matter for frivolity. Genuine bids have been made for the work from as far afield as Glasgow and Tayside, Cornwall, Dorset, and, as we have heard today, Basildon and Torbay. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is naturally keen that we should guarantee that the lottery operation will go to Liverpool. That would be unfair to the other areas which have already expressed interest in welcoming the lottery.
The new clause is tightly drawn. I personally think that it is rather impractical. I do not take much pleasure from imagining areas vying with one another to show that they stand to suffer more than other areas from the advent of the lottery. That is rather macabre.
§ Mr. Graham
Does not the Minister accept the point made by Opposition Members that Merseyside, Strathclyde and other areas will probably suffer loss of employment in the pools industry as a result of the introduction of the lottery? We therefore make a special plea for the headquarters to be set up in one of those areas.
§ Mr. Key
Yes. Of course I accept that Merseyside is more likely to be affected than any other area. What I have to say about that is straightforward. Under clause 11, the Secretary of State will ensure that location is one of the many matters which are taken into account in deciding whether to grant a licence. That could not be an overriding consideration if it conflicted with the director general's overriding duties in clause 4 to create a lottery run with propriety in the interests of participants generating maximum net proceeds. However, I am clear that it should be one of the matters which are taken into account. That puts an onus on the interested areas to make their best case to potential operators.
Today's debate has ensured that any potential operator who takes seriously the proceedings on the Bill in the House will, on reading the report of the debate, be under no misapprehension about the seriousness with which we have treated the subject. They will therefore bear in mind carefully what I have said about granting a licence.
§ Mr. Alton
With the leave of the House, I should like to make a few remarks in response to the debate. I recognise that we have had a good debate in which many hon. Members have participated. Obviously, I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. I am also sorry that he misrepresented the new clause. I did not intend to seek a Division, but after hearing his reply I feel more determined to press the matter, if it is the will of Opposition Members that we should test the issue.
It worried me that the Minister suggested that the amendment contained an attempt to bring the headquarters of the national lottery specifically to the city of 997 Liverpool. The new clause does not mention Liverpool once. It seeks to set out a clear principle that, if a part of the country can demonstrate that it has lost jobs as a direct consequence of the introduction of the national lottery, the headquarters should be situated in that area. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
If the Minister had said that, although he was not happy to include the new clause in the Bill, he accepted the principle and would reflect before the Bill went to another place on whether he could go some way to meeting hon. Members' points, I would have been happy to act reasonably and would not have pressed the new clause to a Division. But, in the light of what has been said, I believe that the issue is so important that the House ought to divide on it.
Every Member of Parliament could have set out a case for his constituency. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is an indomitable and well-known spirited fighter for his constituency, but the fact remains that his constituency will not directly lose a single job as a result of the introduction of the national lottery. That also applies to the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). The hon. Member for Surbiton referred to job losses at British Aerospace. They have nothing whatever to do with the introduction of the national lottery, as he would be the first to concede.
But jobs will be lost at Zetters, Vernons and Littlewoods in the view of many Opposition Members who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and for other constituencies.
It is the clear view of many people that jobs will be lost. It is the view of the industry itself. I am the first to accept that that may not happen. If it does not, the new clause makes the way clear to site the headquarters in any part of the country that can demonstrate that it would be the right place, be it Basildon, Torbay or Surbiton. However, if areas can demonstrate—I believe that they will be able to do so—that they have suffered a significant loss of jobs directly attributable to the introduction of the national lottery, it is surely not unreasonable for Members of Parliament from those communities to ask that the new jobs should be placed in those areas.
Hon. Members have made the point—it hardly needs reiterating—that unemployment is deeply corrosive of family and community life. It deeply affects those who become unemployed. People who are currently employed in industries such as the pools industry in Merseyside, Glasgow or London and are likely to lose their jobs will note the debate today with great care. As the hon. Member for Broadgreen said, many of them have written to Members of Parliament saying that they fear for their job. Surely it is not unreasonable to say to them that if, a year from now, they can demonstrate that, as a result of the introduction of the national lottery jobs have been lost from their community, we will ask that the new jobs created by the national lottery should go to that district.
Hon. Members from across the political divide are making a strong and united plea. The House will be aware that I disagree on many political issues with many of my hon. colleagues from Merseyside. But on this issue we are united in our plea. It is not good enough for hon. Members to accuse hon. Members from one area of militancy and extremism when they hear a united plea and a sustained 998 argument which is perfectly reasonable. The Government should listen to that carefully. Instead of accusing hon. Members, as they did on Second Reading, of fighting the wrong battle at the last ditch, the Government should recognise that here is an example of hon. Members making a perfectly sensible proposal. I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the new clause in the Division.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 259.1000
|Division No. 251]||[6 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Gunnell, John|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Hall, Mike|
|Ainger, Nick||Hanson, David|
|Allen, Graham||Hardy, Peter|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Harvey, Nick|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy||Heppell, John|
|Ashton, Joe||Hill, Keith (Streatham)|
|Barnes, Harry||Hinchliffe, David|
|Barron, Kevin||Home Robertson, John|
|Bayley, Hugh||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Beith, Rt Hon A. J.||Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Hoyle, Doug|
|Bennett, Andrew F.||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Berry, Dr. Roger||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Betts, Clive||Hutton, John|
|Blunkett, David||Ingram, Adam|
|Boyce, Jimmy||Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)||Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)|
|Burden, Richard||Jowell, Tessa|
|Caborn, Richard||Keen, Alan|
|Callaghan, Jim||Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Khabra, Piara S.|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Canavan, Dennis||Leighton, Ron|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)||Lestor, Joan (Eccles)|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Lewis, Terry|
|Clapham, Michael||Livingstone, Ken|
|Clark, Dr David (South Shields)||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Llwyd, Elfyn|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Loyden, Eddie|
|Coffey, Ann||Lynne, Ms Liz|
|Connarty, Michael||McAllion, John|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||McCartney, Ian|
|Corbett, Robin||McKelvey, William|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Maclennan, Robert|
|Cryer, Bob||McMaster, Gordon|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||McWilliam, John|
|Dafis, Cynog||Madden, Max|
|Dalyell, Tam||Mahon, Alice|
|Darling, Alistair||Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)|
|Davidson, Ian||Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)|
|Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)||Martlew, Eric|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Maxton, John|
|Dixon, Don||Meacher, Michael|
|Dowd, Jim||Meale, Alan|
|Eagle, Ms Angela||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Eastham, Ken||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)|
|Enright, Derek||Miller, Andrew|
|Etherington, Bill||Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Morgan, Rhodri|
|Fisher, Mark||Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)|
|Flynn, Paul||Mowlam, Marjorie|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Mudie, George|
|Foulkes, George||Mullin, Chris|
|Fraser, John||O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)|
|Fyfe, Maria||O'Hara, Edward|
|Gapes, Mike||Olner, William|
|Garrett, John||O'Neill, Martin|
|George, Bruce||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Gerrard, Neil||Parry, Robert|
|Godsiff, Roger||Pendry, Tom|
|Graham, Thomas||Pickthall, Colin|
|Pike, Peter L.||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|Prescott, John||Tipping, Paddy|
|Primarolo, Dawn||Trimble, David|
|Randall, Stuart||Tyler, Paul|
|Raynsford, Nick||Vaz, Keith|
|Robertson, George (Hamilton)||Wallace, James|
|Roche, Mrs. Barbara||Wareing, Robert N|
|Rooker, Jeff||Watson, Mike|
|Rooney, Terry||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)|
|Rowlands, Ted||Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)|
|Sheerman, Barry||Winnick, David|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Simpson, Alan||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)||Mr. David Alton and Mrs. Jane Kennedy.|
|Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Davies, Quentin (Stamford)|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Alexander, Richard||Day, Stephen|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Deva, Nirj Joseph|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Devlin, Tim|
|Amess, David||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Ancram, Michael||Duncan, Alan|
|Arbuthnot, James||Duncan-Smith, Iain|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Durant, Sir Anthony|
|Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Ashby, David||Elletson, Harold|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)||Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Evans, Roger (Monmouth)|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)||Evennett, David|
|Baldry, Tony||Faber, David|
|Banks, Matthew (Southport)||Fabricant, Michael|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas|
|Bates, Michael||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Batiste, Spencer||Fishburn, Dudley|
|Bendall, Vivian||Forman, Nigel|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Forth, Eric|
|Body, Sir Richard||Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman|
|Booth, Hartley||Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)|
|Boswell, Tim||Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Freeman, Roger|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes||French, Douglas|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Fry, Peter|
|Brazier, Julian||Gale, Roger|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Gallie, Phil|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Browning, Mrs. Angela||Gill, Christopher|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Gillan, Cheryl|
|Butler, Peter||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Butterfill, John||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Carlisle, John (Luton North)||Gorst, John|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)|
|Carrington, Matthew||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Cash, William||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Grylls, Sir Michael|
|Churchill, Mr||Hague, William|
|Clappison, James||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)||Hannam, Sir John|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Colvin, Michael||Harris, David|
|Congdon, David||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Conway, Derek||Hawksley, Warren|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)||Hayes, Jerry|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Heald, Oliver|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Couchman, James||Hendry, Charles|
|Cran, James||Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)||Hill, James (Southampton Test)|
|Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)||Renton, Rt Hon Tim|
|Horam, John||Richards, Rod|
|Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Riddick, Graham|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)||Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm|
|Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)||Robathan, Andrew|
|Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)||Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn|
|Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)||Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)|
|Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Hunter, Andrew||Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela|
|Jackson, Robert (Wantage)||Ryder, Rt Hon Richard|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Sackville, Tom|
|Jessel, Toby||Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Shersby, Michael|
|Key, Robert||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Knapman, Roger||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)||Spencer, Sir Derek|
|Knight, Greg (Derby N)||Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Knox, David||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Kynoch, George (Kincardine)||Spring, Richard|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Sproat, Iain|
|Lawrence, Sir Ivan||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Legg, Barry||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Leigh, Edward||Steen, Anthony|
|Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)||Stephen, Michael|
|Lidington, David||Stern, Michael|
|Lilley, Rt Hon Peter||Stewart, Allan|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Streeter, Gary|
|Lord, Michael||Sweeney, Walter|
|Luff, Peter||Sykes, John|
|Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Taylor, John M. (Solihull)|
|Mac Kay, Andrew||Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Thomason, Roy|
|Madel, David||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Maitland, Lady Olga||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Malone, Gerald||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Mans, Keith||Thurnham, Peter|
|Marlow, Tony||Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Tracey, Richard|
|Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)||Trend, Michael|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Trotter, Neville|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick||Viggers, Peter|
|Merchant, Piers||Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Milligan, Stephen||Walden, George|
|Mills, Iain||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Waller, Gary|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Waterson, Nigel|
|Moss, Malcolm||Watts, John|
|Nelson, Anthony||Wells, Bowen|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Whitney, Ray|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Whittingdale. John|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Norris, Steve||Wilkinson, John|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley||Willetts, David|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Wilshire, David|
|Ottaway, Richard||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Paice, James||Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)|
|Patnick, Irvine||Wolfson, Mark|
|Patten, Rt Hon John||Wood, Timothy|
|Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Yeo, Tim|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Pickles, Eric||Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.|
|Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Powell, William (Corby)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.