Seanad debates
Wednesday, 6 November 2002
Adjournment Matters. - National Lottery.
Frank Feighan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I call on the Minister to intervene in the current lotto dispute. The National Lottery is downgrading up to 60 lotto terminals most of which are in rural areas. This will be a blow to the viability of these areas. My family business is a newsagents in Boyle, County Roscommon. I am a lotto agent and have first hand knowledge of how important it is for people to be able to choose their lucky numbers, such as wedding dates, birthdays, etc. My own lotto business is not at risk. It is one of the busiest in rural Ireland. It is also very lucky in that we have had three or four lotto wins.
I am making representations on behalf of people who live in rural areas in my constituency and elsewhere who want the right to choose their lotto numbers. As a result of many lotto machines being downgraded, they do not have that right, unlike citizens in towns and cities, although as citizens in rural areas, they should have the same right. They are being denied the chance to choose their numbers. It is a further erosion of the quality of life in rural Ireland. Another result of these machines being downgraded is that lotto syndicates in pubs, clubs and schools will have to travel up to eight or ten miles to larger areas to play their numbers.
The Minister for Finance loves a flutter but is denying people in rural areas the chance to choose their lotto numbers. If the National Lottery proceeds with this disastrous downgrading which discriminates against rural areas, it will have to change its name to "The National Lottery – Almost Nationwide". Will the Minister intervene because instead of a win-win situation, it is a lose-lose situation for rural Ireland? This disastrous decision must be reversed.
John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
On behalf of the Minister for Finance, I thank Senator Feighan for allowing me the opportunity to set the record straight on this issue.
News of this matter first surfaced some weeks ago in media reports indicating that the National Lottery had downgraded some 60 lottery terminals countrywide. This is the case and it is regrettable that their number is up, so to speak. However, what may not be appreciated is that this occurred as part of an overall restructuring of the lotto terminal network. The position regarding lotto terminals and their availability following on from this exercise is much more positive.
In January of this year the National Lottery carried out a review of its terminal network. At that time approximately 2,000 lotto terminals and 1,500 "instant only" or scratch card terminals were installed. In conducting this review it examined the sales levels of each of its existing terminals and also took into account the changing retail environment since these terminals were first installed. As a result, the company decided to do a root and branch job of replacing the entire terminal base of 3,500 between now and Christmas to reflect the findings of the review. In doing so, it decided to use the opportunity to improve the service levels to the player base by changing the machine type provided in certain outlets.
The 60 retailers who are the subject of this motion were originally full lotto agents, that is to say, they could offer the full range of lotto games, including the facility of entering personal choices of numbers. What has changed now is that, while lotto can still be played at these outlets, the personal option is not available. However, the "quickpick" option will be available for the full range of on-line games – Lotto, Lottoplus, Lotto 5-4-3-2-1 and Tellybingo. It is also worth noting that 50% of all lotto plays are made using this facility. This decision reflects the level of activity formerly associated with these outlets which did not warrant the continuation of the more expensive option of full service.
However, what has not been appreciated are the very positive benefits of the company's exercise, which far outweigh any negative consequences. While 60 outlets were downgraded to a certain degree as a result, on the other hand, following the review 400 agents who previously could only sell scratch cards can offer the "quickpick" option for all the on-line games I mentioned earlier. In addition, a further 100 scratch card agents have been updated to full lotto terminals offering the complete product range. The position is that while 60 outlets were downgraded, 500 others were upgraded. This upgrading and redistribution of services will significantly increase lottery coverage and, in most instances, provide a fuller range of services to a much wider area.
Some Senators may have heard the director of the national lottery, Mr. Ray Bates, give numerous media interviews explaining the rationale for this move. It is fair to say that this rationale was more or less accepted. We must also remember that the company is a commercial entity and is a source of considerable funding each year for a wide variety of worthwhile and essential projects and activities. In the current year, almost €200 million was provided from lottery funds. The more successful and cost effective the company the greater the level of funding there will be available for these purposes. This reminds me to some degree of Phil the Fluter in that, the more one paid, the more he played.
The overall position which will obtain as a result of the lottery's review not only makes commercial sense but will be much more conducive to a wider availability of the full range of lotto services to both urban and rural areas. I am glad to have had the opportunity to clarify the position. I suppose it is a question of you scratching my back and my scratching yours.