| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Smith: I do indeed find the actions of the Opposition somewhat puzzling. There is a term in military usage--friendly fire--which describes falling under a hail of one's own bullets.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Given that the Select Committee inquiry on the royal opera house demonstrated that there were several versions of the meeting between the Secretary of State and Lord Chadlington, will the Secretary of State be surprised if there is some scepticism about any so-called definitive report that he may have issued about his meeting with Peter Davis?
When the right hon. Gentleman first became Secretary of State and brought in the directors of Camelot to demand that they give up their bonuses, is it not the case that he failed? When he had meetings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to defend the good causes and prevent the money from being plundered for the health and education budgets because the Chancellor's sums did not add up, is it not the case that he failed? Has he not made Peter Davis a scapegoat to try to preserve his own political career, come the next Cabinet reshuffle?
Mr. Smith:
When I had a discussion with the directors of Camelot several months ago, I succeeded in getting £24 million extra into the good causes arising from the lottery as a result of those discussions.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington):
Will my right hon. Friend ask the acting Director General of Oflot to satisfy himself, and in turn to satisfy my right hon. Friend, that the directors of GTech are and remain fit and proper persons to be part of the consortium running the lottery; and if not, to use powers to end the contract forthwith?
Mr. Smith:
That is indeed one of the duties of the director general. I look to the new director general to exercise those duties with the greatest vigour and care.
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford):
Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to distance himself from some of the more rabid anti-lottery statements that have come from hon. Members behind him this afternoon? In particular, will he acknowledge that the lottery under the running of Camelot has raised millions and millions of pounds for good causes, and that he would not want to put that at risk? If he is re-awarding the contract, is it more important to award it to a not-for-profit organisation than to guarantee a continuation of the large sums of money going to the good causes? Which does the right hon. Gentleman consider more important?
Mr. Smith:
I have heard no rabid anti-lottery statements this afternoon from the Benches behind me. I hope that, with a new bidding process post-2001, a higher percentage will come to the good causes than does at present.
Ms Claire Ward (Watford):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the past few days, many employees of GTech and Camelot who work and reside in my constituency will feel sad and let down by the indefensible actions of Guy Snowden? Does my right hon. Friend accept that we need an organisation that will ensure the greatest amount of money to good causes, and which has the greatest experience in running a national lottery?
Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents who work in those organisations that, if they can show, when the licence comes up for renewal, that they have expertise and are willing to accept the Government's change towards a new national and people's lottery, they will not be ruled out of bidding for the contract?
Mr. Smith:
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will be open to any bids to run the lottery post-2001. We will assess those bids on the basis of what is best for the good causes and the future of the lottery.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
Will the Secretary of State not accept the truth: he does not have the guts to tell the House today that he sacked the director general? His weasel words are a cover for the fact that he does not have the guts to tell the public what he did.
Does the Secretary of State agree that he has invented the lack of public confidence in the lottery? The truth is that, far from there being a lack of confidence, the national lottery enjoys huge public confidence, because it works. Not a single ticket holder has been let down. That is due in large measure to the fact that GTech had the technology, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said, and it has delivered to the people. Yesterday the Secretary of State staged a pathetic performance in response to the political requirements of his master at No. 10.
Mr. Smith:
There is one small problem with making the statement to the House that the hon. Gentleman requires: it is not true. Mr. Davis offered his resignation, and I accepted it.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone):
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the
Mr. Smith:
We cannot change the terms of the contract that was awarded by the previous Government. However, I repeat what we said in July's White Paper: the open-ended profit mechanism, which is at the heart of the current contract, will not be entertained in any future contract.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Does the Secretary of State understand that we must ensure that independent regulators, in whatever sphere, are not at the mercy of press hounding? They should resign--or be called upon to resign--when they fail in their duties.
Will the Secretary of State make clear in what ways he thinks Mr. Davis failed in his duties? When the Secretary of State speaks of a lack of public confidence, he may be seeking to generate that lack of confidence in Camelot. Does he acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) made clear, Camelot has been very successful and produced much more money for good causes than was promised in the original licence? It runs what is widely regarded as the most successful lottery in the world.
Mr. Smith:
I have made it extremely clear several times that there is no question mark over Mr. Davis's integrity. He chose to offer his resignation in order to maintain public confidence in the lottery. That is the important point, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares that ambition.
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, before the lottery contract was awarded to Camelot, Peter Davis flew around the United States in a private jet owned by GTech? The day after he awarded the contract to Camelot, he took the then chairman, Sir Ron Dearing, to one side and said that he was aware of the nefarious activities of GTech in the United States, and did not want to see them repeated in the United Kingdom. The events of this week prove that that is what occurred, which made Mr. Davis's position untenable. The only problem remaining for me is that the Opposition do not recognise that fact, but stand by him.
Mr. Smith:
I look to the new regulator to make absolutely certain that there can be no question of any impropriety in the running of the national lottery or any of its component parts.
Mr. Christopher Fraser (Mid-Dorset and North Poole):
On a point of clarification, the Secretary of State said that he spoke to the Prime Minister about his intentions. What intentions did he speak of, and did he intend to settle an old score?
Mr. Smith:
No. I informed the Prime Minister of the discussion that I intended to have with Mr. Davis, as I wished to keep the Prime Minister informed in the normal manner.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter):
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the new regulator will investigate the whole sorry tale of how Camelot came to be awarded the contract in the first place, including the very close financial relationships between the now discredited GTech and Conservative politicians?
Mr. Smith:
The new regulator will be required to fulfil his duties under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. That will entail examining the relationships between the different companies involved and the probity with which the lottery is being run. That is the proper province of the regulator.
Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill had its Second Reading last November and went into Committee in December, and we have been considering it in Committee ever since. So far, as of today, we are on line 2 of clause 1. However, today we adjourned in some disarray because the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), informed the Committee that, in the Government's view, not only is clause 1 defective, but the Bill is defective in a number of other instances. He undertook to advise the Committee by next week how the Bill could be put into proper order.
Two points of order arise for you, Madam Speaker. First, are the Government, or should they be, neutral on private Members' Bills? If they are neutral, what are Ministers doing giving advice to promoters of such Bills on how to put their Bills in order? If the Government are not neutral, why, given that the Bill has been in Committee since last December, have not the Home Office and Ministers tendered their advice much earlier?
That brings me to my second point for you, Madam Speaker. You will know that time for private Members' Bills on the Floor of the House and in Committee is finite. The longer we are in Committee, the less time there is for other private Members' Bills to go into Committee and complete their stages. There is now every possibility that a number of private Members' Bills, which have had a Second Reading in the House, will not reach the statute book for lack of time, because this Committee is hogging Standing Committee C.
4.9 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |