| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Smith: I shall certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend makes in some detail.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): The Secretary of State was selective in choosing which of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) to answer. Will he now answer this question: at the meeting, who first raised the issue of Mr. Davis's resignation--Mr. Davis or the Secretary of State?
Mr. Smith: The matter was discussed mutually between us.
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the departure of Peter Davis was inevitable, because of what happened when the Public Accounts Committee discovered how he had accepted free flights from those to whom he was awarding the contract, and because of the subsequent bribery allegations that were proved in court? It was inevitable, and my right hon. Friend took the right action. Will he now consider separating and dividing the powers of the regulator who looks after the conduct of the industry from those who award the contract, because the regulator will be in the position of wanting to defend his own decision, rather than regulating the industry itself?
Mr. Smith: It is precisely because of concern on that point, which has been frequently expressed and which was raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) today, that we are proposing in the National Lottery Bill the establishment of an advisory panel to give guidance to the director general in the selection of any future operator. It is to address that concern that we have come forward with that specific proposal. It may well be that Parliament wishes to examine that and look at other options, but at least it will make for a much better process than the one that went on last time.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton): Does the Secretary of State recognise that one of the most remarkable achievements of the lottery was the technological factors that went into getting it up and running within a very short time and running it continuously, with satellite uplinks and many other miracles of communication? Is it not the case that Richard Branson--admirable though he may be--cannot even make his trains run on time, and is therefore unlikely to meet those technological challenges? Will he pay tribute to the companies that were involved in ensuring that ours is one of the most technologically advanced lotteries in the world?
Mr. Smith: I certainly endorse the observation that the establishment of the lottery and its running since has been an efficient operation--no one could deny that. As for Mr. Branson, I think that I distinctly heard him say on Monday evening that he no longer intended to put in a proposal to run the lottery in future.
Mr. Joe Ashton (Bassetlaw): Will my right hon. Friend ask the regulator to look at the obscene profits made by Camelot under rules laid down by itself? Is he aware that Camelot pays only 5 per cent. commission to newsagents, many of whom have to work long hours and take as little as £30 or £40 a week, while at the same time Camelot has been making a profit of more than £100,000 a year on each of its employees--probably the biggest profit ratio in the country--and the directors pay themselves huge amounts of money?
Can the new regulator not look at ways of using some of those profits to help newsagents and ensuring that there is a proper system of appeal, so that, when they sell their shop, newsagents can sell on the franchise? There is little, if anything, that the consumer or the person who plays the lottery can do to make an impression on Camelot. Will he ask the regulator to crack down on that sort of thing?
Mr. Smith:
My hon. Friend makes an important point about newsagents and the way in which a franchise can be handed on from one to another. We made it clear in the White Paper we issued in July and in everything we have said since that we shall seek not only a not-for-profit operator for the lottery after the franchise becomes available, but to maximise returns to the good causes.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
Does the Secretary of State accept that we should be extremely grateful to Mr. Richard Branson for pursuing his legal case, because, if he had not been prepared to do that, the circumstances would not have arisen whereby the Secretary of State could take action to restore public confidence in the lottery? Although it is welcome that the Secretary of State has reaffirmed that we shall see the end of Camelot's licence to print money for itself, will he explain to the House why it took one individual pursuing a legal case to provide the opportunity to restore public confidence in the national lottery?
Mr. Smith:
The hon. Gentleman will, of course, wish to reflect on the conduct of Government up to 1 May last year. As for the present, as soon as it was obvious that the court had reached its verdict and that public confidence needed to be restored, I sought a meeting with the director general; the discussion we had resulted in his decision to tender his resignation. That was the right course of action in the circumstances; it was honourable of him to decide to take that course of action. It is clear from the questioning by Conservative Members that they do not think that it was the right course of action.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most remarkable thing about the exchange of views this afternoon is that, once again, we have another demonstration of the Tory Front-Bench team flogging a dead horse. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was paid more than £100,000 by a City firm because he has good judgment--he is certainly not displaying it today.
Today's private notice question was never really necessary; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to get rid of Mr. Davis, whether or not his departure was spontaneous. If there was a telephone call in the night, so be it. It sounds as if somebody else's instincts were on the ball. I have one final suggestion: before the contract reaches its expiry date, my right hon. Friend should get rid of Camelot, which would make the lottery even more popular.
Mr. Smith:
My hon. Friend has got the right hon. Gentleman bang to rights.
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea):
Why is the Secretary of State so protective of Mr. Davis? It is a matter of public record that he behaved in an improper way at least twice. Is it not a fact that GTech, a partial shareholder in Camelot, was twice subject to a federal investigation on account of its Mafia connections? If the Secretary of State can get past the officials who advised his predecessor to give Camelot the contract, he will probably be able to find quite enough documentation to take the contract away from it immediately, which is what he should do.
Mr. Smith:
I shall be very interested to observe the discussions between the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend on the matter. Mr. Davis was found by the Public Accounts Committee to have been unwise in his judgment. That was a matter on which he was exonerated by the then Conservative Secretary of State.
If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about GTech, perhaps he will have a word with his former Conservative colleagues who act for GTech.
Lorna Fitzsimons (Rochdale):
I welcome the statement and my right hon. Friend's actions. He took decisive action, which, out there in the public--certainly among the good burghers of Rochdale--was very welcome and long overdue. I also welcome the Bill's provisions that will put right some of the wrongs.
If Conservative Members were listening and cared that much about the lottery on which they have asked for a statement, they would also welcome those provisions. One such measure is the advisory panel, which is much needed and long overdue; another involves the need for much more transparency. When the next contract is given out, will there be as much transparency as possible so that everyone, inside and outside the House, can ensure that they are truly supporting the people's lottery, both before and after the contract is given?
Mr. Smith:
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire):
I shall bring the questioning back to the conduct of this Labour Government. Did any Minister, or an official on behalf of a Minister, ask Mr. Davis to resign, seek to persuade him to resign, or suggest that he resign?
Mr. Smith:
I have already explained clearly: we discussed the situation arising from the court case; it was a mutual decision that it was in the interests of the national lottery that he tender his resignation and I accept it.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that 99.9 per cent. of the people of this country think that he acted yesterday with diligence, and exercised his responsibilities fully and fairly? However, they are puzzled about why the Opposition are seeking to defend Mr. Davis and GTech.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |