8. Memorandum submitted by
Mr Gordon Sheppard to original inquiry in Session 2000-01
CONCERNS IN THE OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL
LOTTERY
Please accept these matters as attached for
your consideration. The complaint is that there is insufficient
verification of finances (all financial results) in the present
operation of the National Lottery. Please note that this specific
complaint is in respect of the negligence of the Regulator and
the present Operator, Camelot.
Please note; it also specifically relates to
Government as well, in its management of the Good Causes Fund.
Likewise, there is such "obfuscation of the mingling of
monies" from each receipt, from the National Lottery
proceeds, that it is impossible to determine the entire financial
transactions, of each specific contribution to that fund. And,
what has been specifically paid out, from that fund. The complaint,
therefore against the Regulator and Operator, applies to Government
as well. In both instances there is a total lack of proper disclosure
of those revenues. That the ordinary common man and woman, in
the street, can understand.
I enclose details of my specific complaint and
copy of my petition, submitted to Her majesty the Queen (for her
protection), in October 1995. I submitted a copy of this petition,
to Her Majesty, to Camelot in 1976. In reply to me, they advised
that they were perfectly happy about present arrangements, confident,
that their Trust Fund Arrangements cured all ills. I maintain,
for the reasons that I outline here, they do not. More recently,
I submitted a copy of the petition and the detailed complaint
to Nigel Edison at the National Lottery Commission. He
in reply, has just written to me, advising there are no secrets
in the National Lottery.
Parliament, here, has a unique opportunity to
look at the National Lottery again. It is to be hoped that the
Committee will, this time, correct the negligence of parliament
in the creation of the National Lottery Act. Parliament made the
provisions for the protection of the public (playing the lottery)
within the Act. But, parliament failed miserably, in failing to
see those provisions implemented, when the lottery was up and
running. All parliament did was, effectively to decree there would
be a National Lottery, for the Secretary of State to appoint a
Regulator, then wash it's hands off the whole affair. Allowing
the Regulator and the Operator to get on with it. Parliament made
no provisions whatsoever to examine and "ratify" the
arrangements made by the Regulator and the Operator, for the operations
of the National Lottery. Prior to the actual launch of the lottery.
Consequently, all the arrangements for the operations of the lottery
were determined by the Regulator and the (chosen) Operator, Camelot,
from behind closed doors. Parliament (and therefore, The People),
having no participation whatsoever, in the arrangements made.
Parliament, in the framing of the Act, made
provisions for the public's protection. In, Part 1, 4, Clauses
(a) and (b). But Parliament failed to follow this up when the
lottery was launched, to ensure that these provisions, were implemented.
Clause 4 (b) specifically requires;
That the interests of every participant in
a lottery that forms part of the National Lottery are protected.
The general public paying their money each week,
in order to play in the lottery, are participants in the
National Lottery. They are entitled to the protection of law
in that lottery, Parliament, decreed it.
The protection that the People require,
is that the National Lottery is And, is seen to be honest. That
requires that everyone buying a ticket to play in the National
Lottery each week, is entitled to a full "published disclosure"
of the entire financial results, of that lottery. Disclosing,
1. Every penny: In, (in total
receipts of tickets sold).
2. Every penny: Out, (in total
sums paid out, for each and every category of the sums paid out
in distribution).
The National Lottery (as it is now) fails to
provide that protection.
There is such bewildering obfuscation in
the mingling of revenue from the proceeds of the lottery, that
the ordinary general public cannot verify the financial results
of the lottery, for themselves.
It is irrelevant as to whether the Regulator
and the Operator have provided the protection of the People's
money in the provision of Trust Funds and whiz-kid "City
of London" accountancy for professional annual or biannual
audit. The ordinary common-man or women buying a ticket
to play in the National Lottery, has the right and entitlement
to see that information each week, for themselves, When they buy
a "ticket to play" in the lottery, they are entitled
to see, the full results of that lottery. Within days of the lottery
being drawn. This is the verification of the lottery. That, determines,
the lottery is honest. And, is seen to be honest.
Note: If the Committee examines the National
Lottery Act throughout its entire passage of the Bill through
parliament, it will not find the word verification, at alL Parliament
never even considered the "protection of the public"
in this regard. Parliament was negligent In consequence of which,
the People at present in the National Lottery, do not have this
protection.
When the People buy their National Lottery
tickets each week they are entitled to the full disclosure of
the entire financial results of that lottery. In a full published
report of disclosure of every component part of that lottery,
making up the whole. Every penny in. And, every penny out. The
present arrangements—exclusively arrived at between the
Regulator and the Operator—(privately behind closed doors)—are
entirely unsatisfactory. They fail to provide the People with
their rightful protection, guaranteed by Parliament, in Part 1,4,
(b).
In October 1995, when the National Lottery was
up and running, and finding that the Peoples protection
in the lottery was unsatisfactory and did not fulfil the requirements
of parliaments intention, (and having no alternative protection
of Law, or, access to Law, I petitioned Her Majesty Elizabeth
the Second, for that protection.
I submit a copy of that petition to the Committee,
for it's examination of the detailed complaint. Respectfully,
suggesting, that the Committee should pay particular attention
to the following:
Note: The references following, as for instance
P5,2-10, refer to the petition:
Page 5, item 2-10; as example.
1. Whose money is it? When the People
buy a ticket to play in the National Lottery, at the exact
moment, when the money is handed over to the retailer, whose money
is it? Who has the legal entitlement to the money? For the reasons
I have set out in P5, 2-10 to P7, 2-23, I contend, it is the People's
money throughout. Until such times as each category of pay
out is distributed, under the lawful provisions of the Act. That
is why the public is entitled to full disclosure. They must be
able to check the entire pay out, for themselves. See specifically,
P5.2-12 for Governments determination of whose money it is: "the
money belonged to the people". For this is the crux of
the whole issue at stake. I contend that it always "belongs
to the People" until the lottery has been drawn and all
proceeds have been distributed "according to Law." With
the public having the right to that disclosure. Government, however,
(and as implemented in the operation of the lottery) determines,
that the money "belonged to the people" but no
longer is owned by the people, once that money is handed over
to the retailer for a ticket to play. And, therefore, from that
exact moment, the public, have no further "right to know".
For that is exactly how the National Lottery has been implemented,
and, operates now.
2. The Problem; "sliding scale
percentage distribution". See P7, 2-24 to P9, 2-33 for
explanation of the present problem. Why, Camelot cannot make a
weekly full public disclosure. The Regulator and Operator Camelot
made arrangements (behind closed doors) for the present system
of distribution of proceeds from the lottery. As incentive to
Camelot, to get the lottery up and running quickly, the Regulator
agreed "sliding scale percentage distribution" of those
proceeds from the lottery.
3. In consequence it is not possible to
provide a full and entire weekly disclosure of results. Had it
been "fixed percentages" for each category of pay out,
as it should have been, (if parliament had been vigilant) this
full disclosure weekly, could easily have been made.
4. I respectfully, advise the Committee,
that to date, since the inception of the National Lottery there
have been close on 500 individual lottery games drawn. Each is
numbered from the start of the lottery, and is treated as a game
in its own right. If the lottery is honest—and is seen to
be honest—for each of those games drawn, it should be easy
to determine the outcome. All financial transactions for each
game drawn. Every penny in and every penny out, every single component
"making up the whole", for each individual game drawn.
5. I therefore suggest that the Committee
should put itself in the shoes of the public and select any one
of those games, or more, at random, to try and determine the full
accounting of that game. Select any games you like, (they are
all numbered) and it will prove impossible, to fully determine
the financial transactions of that game. Every component parts,
in and out.
6. With respect, it is irrelevant, if the
"City of London" can audit and determine those results
as honest. If, the "common man and woman in the street"
cannot. It may be honest, proven by annual audit. But it is still
corrupt. For this reason: every player of the lottery is entitled
to know that the lottery he has invested in is honest, before
he invests again.
7. Finally, irrespective of the public's
seemingly lack of concern in this regard, so far. In that, there
has not been a public furore over nondisclosure, and therefore
the public seems unconcerned. Has no relevance to the fact that
parliament provided the public's protection. And that the Regulator
and the Operator should provide it. The fact that the public is
unconcerned thus far, only proves that a fool and his money
are easily parted. That, in no way relieves the Regulator
and Operator from the responsibility to provide full disclosure.
That provision, is
provided for in the Act, and should be properly implemented.
8. In P9, 2-33 I advised Her Majesty
that parliament should look at the National Lottery again. This
is the unique opportunity for the Committee to do so. Correcting
the negligence of last time.
I wish to make a further submission at this
time:
In respect to the recent developments of the
National Lotteries Commission, to continue discussions and negotiations
with The Peoples Lottery (Sir Richard Branson). I declare
here that I have no interests or connections, in any way, with
either The Peoples Lottery or with Sir Richard Branson,
and never have had. However, in the light of the very strong attack
against him published by Tom Bowyer in his book "Branson"
featured in the Daily Mail in recent days, one would
be a fool if not seriously concerned, that Sir Richard Branson
is not "a suitable person" to run the National Lottery.
Tom Bowyer asserts that he "defrauded"
Customs and Excise in his past, whilst a Director of his
company.
That alone should disqualify Sir Richard
Branson from running the National Lottery. It surely must
determine, he is not a fit and proper person to run a lottery.
21 September 2000
|
