HL Deb 06 March 1992 vol 536 cc1116-25

12.4 p.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the national lottery White Paper which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"I should like to make a Statement about the Government's plans, set out in a White Paper being published today, to introduce a national lottery for good causes. As honourable Members will know, we have been considering for some time the merits of a national lottery. It raises a number of complex practical issues, but the potential benefits are substantial. In the past in our own country a lottery funded the foundation of the British Museum. More recently, in Canada, a lottery also helped to fund the Olympic Games. A lottery helped to fund the building of the Sydney Opera House.

"Many other countries have long been using the proceeds of national lotteries to fund a wide range of projects which improve the quality of life of their people. Every other country in Western Europe has a national lottery. In the years ahead it will become increasingly difficult in practice to prevent their lottery tickets being sold in this country. Without a national lottery of our own, other countries rather than our own will benefit.

"In the light of all these considerations, and bearing in mind the opportunities it will give us to raise substantial sums for the public benefit, the Government have decided to introduce a national lottery to be promoted throughout the United Kingdom. We propose that the national lottery proceeds should be used to support projects of lasting benefit to the nation. The good causes to be funded will be sports, arts, our heritage and charities. This means that sporting facilities could be further improved and new ones provided; a whole range of additional facilities for young people could be developed; our historic buildings, houses, museums, galleries and cathedrals could be restored and worthwhile new buildings constructed; art treasures could be purchased for our national collection; and a wide range of other charities could be supported.

"A national lottery could be operating by 1994, but it will take some time to become fully established. Once fully developed, it could raise up to £1 billion a year for good causes. I must emphasise that this will be additional funding. The Government do not intend that the money provided from the lottery should substitute for existing expenditure programmes. Nor do we believe that lottery proceeds should go to the main areas of public expenditure, such as the National Health Service. These services are of fundamental importance to the community and must continue to be funded by the Exchequer in the normal way.

"We have concluded that a single national lottery is the best way forward. This would allow major prizes to be offered and it would maximise the potential funds which could be raised for good causes, while minimising the risk of fraud or mismanagement.

"The White Paper sets out the broad framework for the operation of the national lottery. There will be an independent National Lottery Board whose task will be to distribute the proceeds of the lottery. The day-to-day operation and management of the lottery will be undertaken by the private sector under contract and subject to strict regulation.

"Today's White Paper sets out a number of practical issues, and on some of them we want to consult interested parties. We are aware of the concerns of the football pools companies and others. We intend to discuss their concerns with them and to assess the possible effect of a national lottery on their activities. In the light of these discussions we shall consider whether there is a case for any changes in the controls under which they operate at present.

"Charities will be among the beneficiaries of the lottery. But we still need to consider how best to protect their interests, both in the allocation of the proceeds and the effect on their income from existing small lotteries. We would welcome the views of all charitable organisations on both these points.

"A national lottery will be a popular development of great significance. It provides a unique opportunity to improve in a lasting way the quality of our national life. I look forward to its early introduction".

My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.

Lord Richard

My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that it seems an absurdity to come before the House in the dying days of a Parliament with proposals to establish a national lottery which could and perhaps should have been made months if not years ago. We can be forgiven if we feel that this measure has something more to do with the imminence of a general election than the establishment of a great new national institution which will be of lasting benefit to the arts, sport, the heritage, small charities and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I only express the hope that the party opposite has banked the cheques from Messrs. Littlewoods and Vernons into its war chest for the election. If that has not been done, who knows what effect this measure might have upon the balance sheet of the party opposite.

Quite apart from the timing of this measure, if I may say so, this is the most extraordinary way to proceed. As late as January, as my right honourable friend the Shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Hattersley, pointed out, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Home Office said no fewer than seven times that a decision on these matters could not be taken without careful examination and consideration. He was particularly precise about the need to examine the impact on the pools industry to give those directly affected a chance to express their views". Have they been given the chance directly to express their views? So far as I know, virtually no consultation has been undertaken.

A decision has been made. Paragraph 3 of the White Paper is quite clear about that. It says that the Government have decided to introduce a national lottery.

That is putting the cart before the horse. One takes the decision, and having taken the decision, one then proceeds to consult those bodies which will be most affected and which one had promised would be consulted before the decision was taken. I am reminded of the Red Queen in "Alice"—sentence first, verdict afterwards.

One could go on about that decision. Have the Churches been consulted? Have the Chapels been consulted? I am sure that where I come from the Chapels and the Churches will have distinct views upon the morality of introducing a national lottery. Have the Government had the benefit of that religious input? Have they consulted the industries which will be most affected? Not as far as I know.

I want to make two points about the Statement itself. It is very important that any money which is raised by a national lottery which goes to sport, the arts, the national heritage and what-have-you, should be genuinely additional money. The Government should not he surprised if we make that point with some vehemence in view of the way in which the issue of additionality in relation to payments from the European Social Fund and the European Regional Fund have been treated by the Government. Any money raised by a national lottery must not be an excuse for the Government to reduce public expenditure.

The Labour Party position is perfectly clear. We made it clear in a policy document which was published some months ago. We shall give serious consideration to the establishment of a national lottery. On one side, there are certain benefits which may well flow from a lottery, but we are not prepared to introduce a national lottery before we have consulted those interests which are most affected. We shall not, as the Government are doing, take the decision first and consult afterwards.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend on the lottery. I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, although, at the end of the noble Lord's statement I was not entirely clear about the Labour Party's position except that it will consider the matter and, I suppose, keep it under permanent review.

The issue is one which gives rise to certain obvious questions. It is one thing to tolerate gambling but it is quite another for the Government positively to encourage it. It is on that aspect which the chapels to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred may have a point to make. Yet that is what the Government will have to do if the lottery is to collect the sums which the Government have in mind, namely, £1 billion a year. It is rather odd for this Government of all governments to nationalise gambling, which is a well-known addiction like alcoholism or drug taking. One can become addicted to gambling.

I shall always remember the answer given by a Liberal politician and Member of Parliament, Sir Harcourt Johnson, of somewhat Whiggish views, when asked whether he was in favour of gambling. He said that he was not. When asked why in that case he gambled so much himself on the racecourse—which was well known—he replied that he could afford it. That seems to me to be a perfectly rational answer. Gambling is an addiction and is accepted to be an addiction and it is odd that the Government should positively encourage it.

The Statement indicates that the sum raised will be devoted to almost every good cause which has occurred to the Home Secretary in reaching the decision. Despite the fact that the Government do not intend that the money should provide a substitute for existing programmes, there is a danger that that is precisely what will happen. It will be used as an excuse to divert funds from causes which warrant, deserve and should have overt government support. It will reduce the Government's responsibility for funding such services as the arts. That suspicion is confirmed and made apparent by the Statement itself, in which it is said that the lottery should not be a substitute for existing programmes: Nor do we believe that lottery proceeds should go to the main areas of public expenditure, such as the National Health Service. These services are of fundamental importance to the community". One can only conclude from that that the Government regard the arts as a service which is not of fundamental importance to the community.

It is precisely that overt implication in the Statement of first and second-class categories of importance which worries me. It seems to me that we can take it from the Statement that the arts are not to be regarded as a service of fundamental importance to the community in the eyes of the present Government. It is for that reason that I find the Statement a source of very real anxiety.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I have never heard such a muddled welcome as that given by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to this proposal. He accused the Government of various things but his own reply was the most muddled I have heard on the subject of a national lottery. In respect of his remarks concerning his party's policy, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.

My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Lloyd, made it clear that the Government warmly welcomed the idea of a national lottery and he consulted on how best to proceed. That is what we are doing now. The White Paper is a consultation document. That is obvious. We said that we would consult and we shall consult those concerned. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been in touch with the pools companies and the pools promoters and we shall consult them in the future.

Both noble Lords mentioned additionality. The best that I can do is to draw their attention to paragraph 41 of the White Paper, which says that: Under standard conventions the disbursements of a national lottery will be classified as public expenditure in the national accounts. The Government does not intend that the money provided from the lottery should substitute for that provided in other ways". That is obvious.

The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, mentioned gambling. I remind him that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, said in his report on gambling in 1978 that a lottery was a harmless entertainment providing a rare opportunity to improve the quality of British life.

I also draw the noble Lord's attention to how much we have spent on the arts. Arts spending in 1991–92 is 56 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79. The Office of Arts and Libraries programme of expenditure for 1990–91 is £560 million. That is a very real commitment.

Lord Richard

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down—and I apologise for interrupting the right reverend Prelate, who was about to get to his feet—will he look at paragraph 3 of the White Paper, which states very firmly: It is against this background that the Government has now decided"? It does not say that the Government are consulting as to whether they should take that decision but that the Government have now decided. The noble Viscount may rubbish what I said but there is no question that the decision has been taken and consultations are to follow.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, that is perfectly clear. We produced the White Paper so that we are able to consult. That is what my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said earlier this year.

12.20 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Sheffield

My Lords, I found the Minister's Statement melancholy listening. I recognise that the desire to be rich is fairly low in any list of vices and does not do a great deal of harm. But it is vice: "Thou shalt not covet" and greed. It is human experience that makes it one of the seven deadly sins.

At present we hear many calls for a moral lead in the nation. I am one of those who believe that moral leads are too important to be left to the pulpit. They need to be indulged in by those who have power and authority and by governments, to whom the power to rule has been entrusted, in one sense, by God. It can be left to private enterprise to meet the needs of private vices. That is surely not the job of government.

I listened with interest to the various good causes which the lottery will support. However, over and over again we return to the issue that those good causes are either worthy of public munificence and private charity or they are not. If they are not, then to feed them in such an underhand way, by pandering to people's weaknesses, seems to me to be degrading, even though cathedrals come on the list of those who will benefit. It is a degrading way to do things.

I hope that wiser thoughts will eventually prevail. A former Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, gave mortal offence in this Chamber by describing Macmillan's premium bonds as a squalid lottery. I find the same words in my mind this morning.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate does not support the lottery. I point out to him that we are the only country in western Europe which does not have a national lottery. Indeed, until quite recently we were the only country in the whole of Europe, apart from Albania, that did not have a national lottery. To be left in that class with that nation seems very odd.

There are many lotteries in Europe which will extend over national boundaries. Therefore the last thing one wants is for people in this country to buy lottery tickets for a benefit that goes somewhere else and not into the many good causes in this country. That is important.

Lotteries are not new in this country. The first recorded lottery in England took place in 1569, to raise money for the repair of the Cinque Ports. There have been lotteries in this country for a number of years. The last one took place in 1826. Before then lotteries had raised a great deal of money for special purposes. For example, the first Westminster Bridge was built with funds from lotteries in 1739. I believe that a national lottery will enable many good causes in this country to benefit.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the success of a national lottery depends on popular support? Can he tell the House what representations the Home Secretary has received from the public for or against a national lottery? My noble friend Lord Richard brought up the subject of consultation. Can the noble Viscount say whether the Government will withdraw the proposal, if consultation shows adverse reaction to a national lottery?

I ask the noble Viscount quite seriously what has made the Government change their mind quite radically. He may recollect that two years ago there was a debate in this House about the virtues of a national lottery. Perhaps I may just quote one or two lines from the response of his noble friend Lord Ferrers. He said: No other country which is comparable to ours appears to have as varied a gambling industry as we have with which any new gambling enterprise would have to compete. It is commonly assumed that a major lottery would divert current spending, in particular away from the football pools. I suggest that there must be a limit to the amount of money which is waiting to find a home in the general area of gambling … There is certainly some concern that the lotteries would nevertheless draw from a pool of money which charities as a whole could otherwise tap directly and more cost-effectively". —[Official Report, 28/2/90; col. 802.] It is therefore of interest that the Minister's presentation of the Statement today did not bring up any of the anxieties that the Government had before. It would be interesting to learn how they resolved those anxieties in order to bring forward this highly enthusiastic Statement presenting a national lottery.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, perhaps I may draw her attention to paragraph 33 of the White Paper about the effect on charities: One of the concerns most frequently voiced about the impact of the national lottery is that charities will lose income from existing small lotteries and from charitable donations generally". It goes on: The Government want to consult widely with major charitable interests and will pay careful attention to their views". We have received many representations and letters from members of the public in support of a national lottery. There has been support for a national lottery on both sides of another place. That is why the decision was made to bring in the White Paper to consult on a national lottery.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, will the noble Viscount withdraw the White Paper if the consultation shows an adverse reaction from those with whom the Government consult?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, that is a hypothetical question and I could not possibly answer it.

Lord Kinnaird

My Lords, I support my noble friend the Minister. Perhaps I may make just one comment. In the past 20 minutes I have never in the whole of my life heard more smug rubbish spoken.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support, provided that his remark about smug rubbish was not addressed to this side of the House but to the other side.

Lord Annan

My Lords, will the noble Viscount be willing to hear a word in favour of joy and liberty? I ask myself whether the worry about consultation is as necessary as has been made out. For years we have been talking openly in public and in the press about a national lottery. The Rothschild Report went into the matter with enormous thoroughness, but nothing was done.

We know fairly clearly the arguments against and in favour of this measure. Listening to some of the comments today, and especially the words of the right reverend Prelate, I was reminded of President Coolidge. On returning from church he was asked what the sermon had been about. He said that it had been about sin. Then: "What did the preacher say, Cal?"—"He was against it."

That is a perfectly natural reaction from people who feel sincerely that gambling is a great evil and should not be encouraged in any way. I do not share those views. I believe that it is one of the minor joys, although like alcohol it can bring great evils in its train. I feel that people should be free to engage in a national lottery. I should prefer to see the profits of such a venture go into the arts, sport and other good causes rather than into the pockets of the directors of Littlewoods. The pools have had it too good for too long without sufficient competition.

I am amused by the fact that the Government have produced competition, but in this case competition is provided by the state. I very much welcome the initiative of the Government. I am sure that they will listen to reactions to the White Paper. I feel that we ought to welcome it.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome for this initiative. Many times in arts debates over the past few years he and I have discussed the possibility of a national lottery. Indeed, on many occasions I have been pressed for the formation of a national lottery. I am particularly delighted to be able to come forward today to announce that that will happen. Obviously, together with sport, charities and the heritage, the arts will be an important area of funding. We shall be able to look at museums, galleries and the possibilities of raising money through the lottery for buying pictures of great national importance. There are many areas in which a national lottery can be used.

With regard to football pools, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already been in touch with the pools companies and pools promoters. We do not believe that a national lottery will necessarily be detrimental to them. We hope very much to consult with them. Indeed, a national lottery might be run by them: they could be one of the private companies that bids to run a lottery.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will clarify one point. I have not seen the White Paper. However, I gather that it states that it is the intention of the Government that funds raised by the lottery should be additional to, and not substituted for, existing sources. What safeguards and insurance can one have to that effect? It seems extraordinarily difficult in practice to make sure that the lottery is not a substitute for existing sources rather than additional to them. How will that be achieved? How shall we know that the sums are additional? If the Government fail to increase their input one year, how shall we know that it is not because they feel that that input is being substituted by the lottery? What means have the Government of ensuring additional funds?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I can only draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to paragraph 41 of the White Paper on additionality, to which I have already referred. It is important that it will not be the Government who hand out the money. It will be the National Lottery Board which hands out the money in the four areas I indicated.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, will the noble Viscount enlighten me on two points? First, during the debate on racing last year it was clearly stated by the Minister that it has been public policy, implemented by successive governments, that government should not encourage gambling. How does he reconcile that with the decision to go ahead with a lottery? Secondly, what makes him come to the conclusion that the late Lord Rothschild's views on the morality of gambling are conclusive? One gives him all credit for the work that he did on the commission for gambling.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, in answer to the question about the late Lord Rothschild's views, very simply it is a matter of reading his report. The national lottery is not hard gambling. There is a great difference. In effect it is a flutter, and not a very big flutter. We believe that tickets sold will probably cost in the region of 50p or £l. It is not a huge amount of money.

As I said, sports will be one of the areas to benefit. The noble Viscount may care to consider that, should Manchester be successful in the year 2000 in attracting the Olympic Games, a national lottery will by that stage be in operation. That could benefit Manchester.

Lord Mancroft

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement. I support him for the simplest of reasons. I am chairman of a small charity which, in the past year, has received quite a lot of money from, I believe, the only existing lottery company in Britain; it is called UK Charity Lotteries Limited. The company has attempted to operate in a small way. But very small and unfashionable charities, such as the one of which I am chairman, cannot raise money easily. If it were not for that small charity company, this year we would not have been able to survive. I know of quite a few other charities in the same position. The company has been operating for about a year or 18 months. A total of about £6 million has been contributed to small charities.

It becomes harder and harder to raise money. The right reverend Prelate rightly said that if a charity were worthy and if a cause were a good cause, then government, public funds or charitable donations should allow it to continue. That is a very good theory; but in practice it does not work. Many smaller charities which do good work but do not catch the public imagination or attract grand and influential celebrities to raise money for them simply do not receive money.

I strongly support a lottery for the simple reason that it will raise more money for charities which do not receive funds. That cannot be a bad thing. It would be a peculiarly British irony if it were money from gambling that funded places which provide treatment for a gambling addiction. I have spent much time trying to raise money from producers of alcoholic drinks and from the drug companies to fund treatment for alcoholics and drug addicts. Those producers have been rather reticent in coming forward. Yet they seem to do well out of the people which my organisations treat. If there is any way in which that position can be turned round slightly, I welcome it enormously.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's support. He speaks with great experience about charities, in particular medical charities. We believe that medical charities will be one of the important recipients from the lottery. On charities and charitable giving, we believe that most people continue to support their favourite charities. Charities will be among the beneficiaries of the national lottery. We are prepared to consider proposals to help existing charitable lotteries so that they do not suffer.

Perhaps I may point out to noble Lords that we have, all of us, at times indulged in a lottery. How many times have we been to village fetes? How many times has the right reverend Prelate been asked to buy a lottery ticket in order to support a specific cathedral? All of us in many ways regularly buy lottery tickets for the support of charities. Many organisations have benefited, whether they be charities, medical charities or possibly churches.