Letter: Counting the cost of the lottery
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The National Lottery Bill has been rapturously received. Opposition has been dismissed as 'churlish' and, where it has been covered, has largely centred on the effect on the football pools industry ('A flutter for the nation', 18 December).
Naturally, those of us who represent cities where the pools industry is based are alarmed about the effect on jobs. With 6,500 employees nationally (4,700 on Merseyside) and nearly 80,000 part-
time collectors, we are surely not churlish to wish to protect them.
Yet, this is not our only concern. Charities big and small are aware of the potential downside. The worst case scenario presented by the National Council of Voluntary Organisations suggests a loss to charitable income of pounds 428m. If this proved to be the case, on the basis of the proposed disbursement of the proceeds, the lottery would need to gross pounds 6bn a year in order to ensure no loss to the charities it purports to help. We do not accept that the lottery income will be 'new' money. It is bound to detract from other fund- raising schemes.
Finally, we ask whether it is ethical to fund government schemes through a lottery. Evidence suggests that C2 and D/E social classes will disproportionately support the lottery, although the A/B social groups use sports facilities at a rate one-third above average and cultural facilities at twice the average. We would describe the suggestion that such ventures be funded in this way as a form of regressive taxation.
We would urge those many individuals and organisations we know to be concerned to forcibly make the case against what is far more than a harmless flutter. Has our national political life become so debased that we are to accept income from any source, regardless of cost?
Yours sincerely,
PETER KILFOYLE
MP for Liverpool Walton (Lab)
JANE KENNEDY
MP for Liverpool Broad Green
(Lab)
House of Commons
London, SW1
18 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments