| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maude: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the national lottery is, and continues to be, the most successful and efficient in the world, raising more for good causes and in tax than any other?
On the key question whether Mr. Davis was pushed or resigned spontaneously, how does the Secretary of State reconcile stories in today's papers, clearly based on Government briefing, with his assertion this morning that Mr. Davis's resignation was spontaneous, and Mr. Davis's statement, which was repeated three times yesterday morning, that he would not resign? Is it entirely spontaneous speculation in The Times that
If, as the Secretary of State claimed this morning, Mr. Davis changed his mind over the course of yesterday morning, why was it necessary to delay the announcement so that Mr. Davis could break the news to his family? It would surely have been already on his mind. What took place during the morning that changed Mr. Davis's mind?
In the meeting, who was the first to raise the issue of resignation? Was it raised first by Mr. Davis, or first by the Secretary of State or his officials? Will the Secretary of State say categorically whether there was any discussion between the Prime Minister's office and the Secretary of State or his office before the meeting with Mr. Davis?
If the regulator was pushed--as seems certain, despite the Secretary of State's somewhat wriggling denial this morning--what was the alleged impropriety, given the Secretary of State's statement that
The Secretary of State has raised the issue of public confidence in the national lottery. Does he have a better measure of confidence than the public's readiness to buy national lottery tickets? Will he confirm that sales for the mid-week draw up to last night--before Mr. Davis's resignation--were up by 7 per cent. from the previous week? Is he aware that, of 2,000 calls to the national lottery line yesterday, three were about the trial and only one was a complaint? What evidence is there of the sort of threat to public confidence on which the Secretary of State relied in accepting Mr. Davis's resignation?
Is Mr. Davis free to speak out on yesterday's events, or is he subject to a confidentiality agreement? Can the Secretary of State confirm that Mr. Davis's pay-off of more than £42,000 is to come directly out of the money earmarked for good causes? Will he now publish the minutes of yesterday's meeting? If he will not, does he not understand that many will conclude that he has something to hide?
Is not the truth that Mr. Davis was persuaded to resign; that, to convey the impression of decisive action, the press was briefed that he had been dismissed; but that, because there were no legal grounds for his dismissal,
the Secretary of State is maintaining--to general incredulity, I have to say--that the resignation was completely spontaneous?
Have not the Downing street spin doctors left the Secretary of State to swing in the wind? This is no longer an issue of what he or I think about Mr. Davis's judgment, or whether Mr. Davis should still be in his job; it is about whether Ministers are telling the truth. Unless he is prepared to publish the minutes of yesterday's meeting and lay the matter to rest, it may soon be an issue of whether the Secretary of State himself should still be in his job.
Mr. Smith:
I am tempted to say, "Oh, dear." I had expected some sensible questions about the future of the national lottery, about its proper regulation and about the way in which we can ensure public confidence in its operation. However, we got none of that.
I shall answer some of the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. First, he should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. The situation is clear, and has been set out by me both in the statement that I made last night and in innumerable interviews that I have given since. It has also been confirmed by the official spokesman for the Prime Minister in his Lobby briefing this morning that Mr. Davis decided to offer his resignation and I accepted it.
That is what happened. As for the record of the meeting, I issued a statement following that meeting; that is a public document, and it is the definitive record of the meeting. As for the delay in making the announcement, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should not have applauded me for having ensured that Mr. Davis had time to speak with his family after the discussion, and after he had made his decision.
In answer to the question whether there was contact between myself and the Prime Minister--yes, indeed, there was contact on a regular basis yesterday between myself and the Prime Minister, in the normal way, for me to inform him of what was happening and what my intentions were.
On the question of public confidence and tickets being sold, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the important thing is that we maintain confidence in the lottery for the future. The crucial matter, which I had hoped that he would be interested in--but clearly he is not--is to ensure that the lottery is being run with 100 per cent. propriety. That is the crucial matter, and the new director general will address himself to ensuring that it happens.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ludicrous and banal nit-picking that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench comes ill from a party that created a structure for the national lottery that has resulted in bribery and corruption? Is not the result of the structure that the Conservatives created a situation in which the operating company grabs for itself every spare penny that it can, including the interest on undistributed prizes, and charges the stupid BBC £550,000 a year for the privilege of publicising Camelot--so that the people who operate the lottery can reward themselves with astronomical sums of money?
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House the categorical position of Her Majesty's Government remains as stated in the Labour party manifesto last year:
Mr. Smith:
My right hon. Friend, as ever, makes a series of forceful points. He might have added that it also ill becomes the Conservative party to raise this matter, given that a former Conservative Minister of Sport is currently a £5,000-a-month consultant for GTech and that a former Secretary of State for Social Services is currently on the GTech board.
In response to my right hon. Friend's two main questions, I can tell him, first, that the interest on the prize shortfall is now--I am pleased to say--coming into the pot for good causes. That is as a direct result of my intervention some months back, when the Camelot directors' bonuses were announced. Secondly, it remains our intention to seek an efficient not-for-profit operator for the lottery after 2001, and to make sure that the maximum sums possible go to the good causes.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross):
Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the Branson judgment may not have called into question the integrity of the director general, earlier hearings by the Public Accounts Committee demonstrated that the company which he was responsible for selecting, GTech, was engaged in extremely unattractive and immoral activities in the United States, of which the director general was aware when he made that decision?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is not only the judgment of the director general which is flawed but the legislation for which the Conservative Government were responsible, which gave the director general not only the task of appointing the company to run the lottery but the subsequent duty of regulating the company which he had appointed? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those functions should be separated, and that, in dealing with such vast sums of money going to public causes, it would be appropriate to have the lottery regulated not by an individual alone, but by a council--perhaps along the lines of the Gaming Board for Great Britain?
Mr. Smith:
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to point out that the current legislation, put in place by the Conservative Government, is flawed. That is precisely why, in the National Lottery Bill, we propose to reform the way in which the lottery operator is selected.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that he does not have to explain why the regulator went yesterday--it is the Conservative party which must explain why he did not go two years ago, when the Public Accounts Committee exposed the fact that he had taken the use of a private aircraft belonging to a dubious American company that he was supposed to be monitoring and regulating?
"The National Lottery regulator . . . was dismissed last night on the direct orders of Tony Blair.
Is that spontaneous, or was it based on a direct Government briefing?
Mr. Davis was forced to go during a marathon meeting with Chris Smith"?
"there is no question mark"
over Mr. Davis's integrity?
"When the current contract runs out, Labour will seek an efficient not-for-profit operator to ensure that the maximum sums go to good causes"?
Will he further consult the Chancellor about the possibility of buying out Camelot before that date, using the profits that will accrue to pay for the sum? Will he assure the House that it is the Government's intention that we should have a national lottery in fact as well as in name, and that the people's lottery will in future belong to the people?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |