| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Cunningham: Does the right hon. Lady recognise that her astonishing decision to give Mr. Davis a vote of
confidence was rightly met with universal condemnation in the press today? Does she acknowledge that, on Monday, during questions to the Department of National Heritage, she withheld important information about Mr. Davis's disregard of clear advice from her Department? As she twice promised on Monday to report to the House on her decision, in columns 1204 and 1205 of Hansard, why did she then announce her decision in a press statement and not in the Chamber?
It has taken a private notice question to get the right hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on which she assured the House two days ago she would report. In less than three days this week, she has re-established a pitiful record for inconsistency and bad judgment.
Does the right hon. Lady recall that, as recently as Monday of this week, her own departmental officials were briefing the press that Mr. Davis had to go, yet within 24 hours she had confirmed him in his post? As Mr. Davis has brazened out his position and the Secretary of State has backed down, will she now say to whom and on what basis the regulator is accountable? Is it not absurd for Mr. Davis to suggest that he can carry out his public responsibilities for the lottery effectively only if the very organisation he is there to supervise pays his expenses?
That is a completely new doctrine of public accountability.
Does the point in the right hon. Lady's letter to Mr. Davis yesterday--that his visits took place after the licence was awarded to Camelot--mean anything at all?
Surely it is irrelevant, as his duties and responsibilities to regulate Camelot and GTech persist. She has confirmed him in that post. How can she possibly defend the regulator's conduct when she and her Department specifically advised him against the visits before he undertook them?
Is it not clear that, if the civil service management code applied to Mr. Davis, his position would be completely indefensible? Civil servants are told that they
Has not Mr. Davis blatantly disregarded those principles? Does that not make it clear that a code of conduct for regulators of private monopoly organisations is now long overdue? Will the right hon. Lady undertake to present such a code to the House without delay?
Has not this whole episode exposed an abysmal lack of judgment, not only by Mr. Davis but by the right hon. Lady herself? Is it not clear from her inadequate response to this private notice question that she apparently has learnt nothing from the events of the past week?
Mrs. Bottomley:
The decision was taken only after careful consideration, and an examination of all the facts. It remains the case that Mr. Davis, as the regulator, has overseen the introduction of an incredibly successful lottery--probably the most successful, and the most effectively regulated, anywhere in the world.
There can be no question of withholding information from the House. The right hon. Gentleman is correct: the question of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was answered at 3.30 pm. I hope that I have been entirely open with the House throughout. Yesterday, at the moment when I sent the letter to Mr. Davis, I also placed a copy in the House, and gave copies to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
The regulator of Oflot is indeed required to follow the directions for which the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provides. I issue directions to him under section 11; he is required by section 14 to report annually to the Secretary of State, and I lay his report before Parliament. Indeed, I drew attention to that report at Question Time earlier this year, because it is a thorough, comprehensive and impressive document.
The regulator also answers to the Public Accounts Committee. His performance before that Committee--he replied at length to questions, openly giving information that he had recorded meticulously on all aspects of those questions--was an example of his sense of responsibility and accountability to it. Under section 15 of the Act, the regulator must supply me with any information that I require.
As for the question of advice given to the regulator, it is indeed the case--as I have made clear--that, in general terms, he was advised that he should pay the costs of the hospitality involved in the trip to America. The money used to pay for that trip was provided by Oflot and the taxpayer. In the case of these incidents, the regulator took the view--for operational reasons--that the only way in which he could visit all the different lottery centres and return to work in London in the time provided was to accept GTech's offer.
I do not think that that was wise, but it must be said that--notwithstanding the Labour party's innuendo--it did not constitute an acceptance of gifts: "gifts" implies personal gain, and there is no suggestion of any personal gain in this case. As my hon. Friends are only too aware, the beneficiary was the British taxpayer.
Throughout the affair, there has been no suggestion of the regulator's honesty or integrity being in question. The Labour party's victimisation, pursuit and hounding of a man who has done his job as well as the regulator has demonstrates that it is unfit to govern, now or ever.
Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South):
My right hon. Friend had a very difficult decision to make, and no one would have blamed her if she had decided differently. She determined the issue fairly, judiciously and decisively. Are we not lucky to have in the director general a man who has created a most efficient lottery, as yet untainted by corruption? Is it not the case that only those with the languid intellectual self-assurance of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would believe that total infallibility is as universal among princes as it is always supposed to be among popes?
Mrs. Bottomley:
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that we should make a considered decision that is right, rather than a rash decision that is wrong. I have weighed all the elements of the case very
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland):
Will the Secretary of State refrain from implying that the Public Accounts Committee has given Mr. Davis a clean bill of health? Will she recognise that many people would like to know not only whether she was satisfied about the unwisdom of his accepting hospitality and flights from GTech, but whether she has asked any questions of Mr. Davis about the possible unwisdom of involving GTech in the British national lottery when that company in the United States has left a trail of charges in the criminal courts that are in the public domain? Senior officers have been accused of bribery, fraud, corruption and other crimes. Has she or any of her officials done anything to investigate that appalling background to a company that, on the face of it, appears ill suited to be the lead in running a clean national lottery, far from sleaze?
Mrs. Bottomley:
I was referring to the National Audit Office report, which commented on Mr. Davis's evaluation of the eight bids to run the national lottery, and on the investigation into all the constituent parts, including whether it was suitable, fit and proper for GTech, as a member of the Camelot bid, to undertake that responsibility. The NAO report said:
As for the Public Accounts Committee, what I said was that the director general had given it thorough, open and honest answers at great length, on the basis of information that was carefully recorded and documented. He is a rigorous and thorough individual, which is characteristic of an accountant.
Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton):
Are not the Opposition making themselves look trivial and foolish by taking this stand against Oflot's director general? Can there be any justification in attacking the integrity of that decent, honourable and successful man, who was trying only to save the taxpayer money--[Laughter.]--look how they laugh when it is a question of saving the taxpayer money--to no benefit whatever to himself? Can the justification be any more than a determined attempt to destabilise the lottery, which has been an outstanding success, and to undermine the Government with it?
Mrs. Bottomley:
Undoubtedly, the Labour party always seeks to resort to personal vilification rather than carefully weighing up the evidence. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: the lottery has been a tremendous success. That affronts the Labour party, which loathes success. It would take it away from the operator, cap the prizes and reduce the remarkable amount of money coming through to good causes. Only today, there were another 22 grants from the national heritage memorial fund, which means that 4,600 different projects have benefited from the lottery.
"must not receive gifts, hospitality or benefits of any kind from a third party which might be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity."
Is that not precisely what Mr. Davis has done? The code goes on to say:
"In drawing up and in interpreting their own standards of conduct, departments and agencies must pay full regard to the need for staff to conform and be seen to conform to the principles".
"the evaluation process was comprehensive, consistent, logical and properly controlled".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |