| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West): Will the Secretary of State confirm that the answer that she says she gave me at 3.30--which, incidentally, I did not receive at 3.30, but that is trivial--was nothing to do with the American flight? It was to do with Australia. Will she also confirm that her fax to me of the letter that was going
in the Library was a welcome courtesy, but of no use to 650 other Members, and that it did not allow them or me to ask a question as to a decision on Monday?
Will the right hon. Lady now explain why she told me the day previously in an answer that her Department knew about these flights the week before the Public Accounts Committee hearing, why her accounting officer did not inform the National Audit Office of those flights, and why she did not, as a courtesy, inform the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee about those flights? We are left with a sneaking suspicion that, had it not been for the answer to one question at the PAC meeting, this matter would never have become public.
Mrs. Bottomley:
It was neither appropriate nor necessary to take the steps that the right hon. Gentleman describes. My concern is second to none in wishing the lottery's good name to be maintained. It is a successful and well-run lottery. As I have explained to the House, I reported to it as I announced that decision. It was right to bring the uncertainty to an end.
Once I had had the opportunity, not only to discuss the matter with senior officials at my Department, who had spent a great deal of time with the director general, but to speak to him myself, as swiftly as I could, I took the opportunity of informing the right hon. Gentleman and the House, to bring the uncertainty to an end and to allow the director general to get on with his work.
Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham):
Is it not obvious that Opposition Members detest the tremendous success of the lottery, and would love to overturn it? They cannot succeed in doing that: all they can do is chip around the edges to try to undermine it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the director general is a completely honest man who has done nothing bad, but that, as a distinguished accountant, he has acted more like an accountant than like a judge, which would have been wiser in the distinguished appointment that he occupies?
Mrs. Bottomley:
I entirely share my hon. Friend's assessment. The lottery is certainly a great success. The director general's duty is to ensure the propriety of the lottery, to make sure that the interests of those who play are protected, and to maximise the amount for good causes. As my hon. Friend and 4,600 good causes are aware, the results for good causes have exceeded all expectations. I wish to maintain the lottery's good name, and that is the commitment of the director general. I have made it clear, albeit that these incidents took place several months after the award of the licence to Camelot, that his steps were unwise.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Did not the Secretary of State realise from the very beginning that Peter Davis was connected to this dodgy firm in the United States, which is well known for handing out backhanders to get its own way? That is the firm that he has been cosying up to, and he has been flying here, there and everywhere using its money.
I am drawn to the conclusion reached by somebody, not in the House but out there, one of the people who buy lottery tickets, who said, "What is it Peter Davis knows?
How does he manage to save himself from getting the sack? Does he know where the bodies are buried? Does he know about all the lottery fiddles that have been covered up by the Government?" When will this
Government learn? They are hanging on to save this man's skin, but as sure as night follows day, like all the rest of them they have defended, in the new year he will have to go, and a different story will have to be told.
Mrs. Bottomley:
It saddens me to hear the hon. Gentleman speak in that way on these matters. If I had taken the view that Peter Davis was unfit to continue as the regulator, I would not have hesitated to say so. Having looked fairly and thoroughly at all the evidence, it is my view that he is a proper person to continue with that task, which so far he has undertaken successfully.
I am sure that people "out there" are influenced by repeated comments, such as those made by the hon. Gentleman, which are neither fair nor proper. I understand that Mr. Davis's wife shared childbirth classes with the wife of a director of GTech 20 years ago. That is not a matter that people are required to enter in a register of interests. The hon. Gentleman may understand that.
Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester):
Does my right hon. Friend understand that her decision to stand by the director general of Oflot is widely welcomed by Conservative Members, and by the country as a whole? Does she share my sense of revulsion at the attempt by the Labour party to destroy the reputation of an honest public servant for narrow party advantage? What does she think that kind of gutter politics does for the reputation of politicians as a whole?
Mrs. Bottomley:
My hon. Friend speaks exactly the view that I share--that, if someone from outside the public service comes in to take on a position of responsibility, he has as much right as anyone else to be treated fairly on the basis of the facts. I thoroughly scrutinised all aspects of this case, and I believe that it is right for him to continue with the task. Labour's attitude does it no credit at all.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):
Whether the Minister likes it or not, is not the sad reality that, because of what business people call the "smell factor", Mr. Davis is from now on damaged goods? He will not have the legitimacy and credibility that are necessary for the proper performance of his functions.
Mrs. Bottomley:
I think that I have made it clear that he has done an effective job. He has achieved a better result for the national lottery and for good causes than anyone expected. If the Labour party thinks that the decision should be made on the "smell factor", that makes it even less fit for government. People and their jobs and responsibilities should be considered on the basis of the evidence and the facts, and not on the smell from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
Was that question from the Opposition not a dreadfully obscene example of blood sports, in pursuit of not a politician but an official who thought that he was doing something good by saving his employer--in this case the taxpayer--expenses?
Mrs. Bottomley:
My hon. Friend encapsulates the situation precisely. Mr. Davis has been competent, effective and successful. I believe that he should continue in his job.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
The Secretary of State may not know it, but she has issued a
Mrs. Bottomley:
The hon. Gentleman did not-- I believe--encapsulate the words that I used. What I said was that, in this case, which took place some months after the licence had been awarded, I took the view that it was unwise--albeit there was no personal gain, no lack of honesty or integrity and all aspects were carefully recorded and indeed discussed when questions were asked.
The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at the National Audit Office report, because it is as complimentary an endorsement of the rigour and integrity of the whole process of selection of the operator as any Member could wish to see. The director general of Oflot deserves a great deal of the credit for that successful process.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her courage in not taking the easy way out of this problem. It would have been very easy to ask Mr. Davis for his resignation. Is it right to think that a successful, intelligent and able man should be condemned and forced from a job that he is doing very well because of one instance of something that we might describe as naive?
Mrs. Bottomley:
My hon. Friend speaks for a great number of Members. The decision was not wise, but it has to be seen in the context of somebody undertaking his task extremely successfully and effectively. I should like to quote from a comment made by a former colleague of the director general. It said of Mr. Davis:
That certainly coincides with my experience of him.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North):
Will the right hon. Lady say whether the friendship of 20 years ago was continued, and whether it was known about at the time of the appointment of Camelot?
Hon. Members: McCarthyism.
Mrs. Bottomley:
As my hon. Friends have said, this is becoming McCarthyism of the worst sort. Is the man fit to continue in his role or not? I have said that he retains my confidence, because I believe that he is a man of integrity and honesty. He has always been entirely clear about his past and present acquaintances. There is no evidence that I know of to suggest that the friendship affected his judgment in any way at all. I rely once again on the evidence of the National Audit Office, which gave such a thorough endorsement of his evaluation process of the eight people who bid for the lottery licence.
"He is totally honest and of the highest probity. He is a very meticulous man who writes down everything and all of the expenses he incurs."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |