................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 17.11.96
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon. The National Lottery is
two years old this weekend and I'll be asking Virginia Bottomley if
everything's as rosy as it seems.
What's happened to the beef ban? Mr
Major said they'd start to lift it by this month .. they haven't ... so what
now?
Are the talks in Northern Ireland
nearing their end? I'll be asking David Trimble.
And what's the difference between a
pressure group and a political party? As little as twenty five thousand pounds
perhaps. All that after the news read by MOIRA STUART
NEWS
HUMPHRYS: YOU may be eating British beef for lunch
today ... but they won't be in Europe. They still haven't lifted the ban. Why
not? We'll have a report.
MP's beware ... the pressure groups have
an eye on YOUR seats. They've drawn up their plans and they could have quite an
effect on the General Election.
We'll also be asking David Trimble about
the talks in Northern Ireland. He, it seems, is NOT a happy man.
But first ... happy birthday National
Lottery .... two years old this weekend. By most measures it's been a great
success ... two hundred and seventy seven new millionaires in Britain
because of it and billions gone to good causes. But is it being run as well as
it might be? That's the question I put to the Heritage Secretary Virginia
Bottomley earlier this morning.
Virginia Bottomley, are you happy with
the way the Lottery's being run?
VIRGINIA BOTTOMLEY MP: Well so far I'm very impressed that it's
effective, it's efficient, it takes less in operating costs than any other
Lottery in the world and it's delivered more to good causes. But it is a very
carefully regulated Lottery- that's what Parliament decided and I shall
continue to keep it under review.
HUMPHRYS: But that regulatory system has come
under an awful lot of fire, does that worry you?
BOTTOMLEY: The key decision is one which has been
applauded. The decision that Camelot should have the licence was described by
the National Audit Office as consistent - logical. They undoubtedly do a very
good job for the good causes at a very low cost but it's early days still with
the Lottery and if it looks as though we need to tighten up in any way, then, I
will be the first to do so. I want to make sure that good causes benefit -
they are. There's more going through to Art, Sport and Heritage than at any,
any time in our history. There's no evidence of excessive participation and
I'm confident on the propriety side but any further evidence that we need to do
more, then, we should consider that.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. You talk about perhaps having
to tighten up a little bit. Let's look at some of the areas where you might.
One of the worries is that the Controller of the National Audit Office does not
have the power to scrutinise Camelot, which you say is doing a good job. Maybe
it is but the trouble is we can't be sure of that because the National Audit
Office cannot scrutinise it.
BOTTOMLEY: Well in this country it's the case that
the National Audit Office doesn't scrutinise private sector companies. It was
a decision that a private sector company should take it on. The evidence is
that they are delivering a monumental amount for the good causes and they take
less out for operating costs than any other Lottery distributor anywhere in the
world. Camelot's made up of - what? Cadbury Schweppes, Racal, de LaRue,
G-Tech, IBM - very reputable British Companies.
HUMPHRYS: ICL.
BOTTOMLEY: And, so far- And, ICL - fine. That they
are subject to scrutiny by the regulator. He, of course, reports to Parliament
annually.
HUMPHRYS: A private company - yes. But the
people's Lottery and people might say: come on look, this is our money, it's
going in to the Lottery, it's going to our good causes, it's a bit like tax in
a way only we choose to pay it - we probably don't choose to pay Tax - so why
shouldn't the Audit Office be able to have a look at it?
BOTTOMLEY: Well, Parliament decided the system for
supervising the National Lottery, set up OFLOT. OFLOT reports to Parliament
annually. If at any later stage, subject to a report, we take the view that we
need to have further powers then let's do so.
HUMPHRYS: You wouldn't close that down then? You
wouldn't close that.
BOTTOMLEY: But, at this stage-I think anybody with
a new National Lottery who takes the view that everything in it is fixed for
ever is ridiculous. So that on the distribution side we've already changed.
Started off very much supporting capital projects, now we're supporting people
- young people. The money for sportsmen; this week there's going to be more
money to have more participation in the arts. We've got the Millennium Awards,
the bursaries. So both on the distribution and the organisation of the Lottery
we want to maintain public confidence and we need to make sure that we've got
the proper mechanisms in place.
HUMPHRYS: And one might be to give the National
Audit Office that power. It itself says it wants that power, it needs that
power.
BOTTOMLEY: I wouldn't rule it out but at the same
time this is a private sector company and it seems to me that they have the
powers of OFLOT to regulate Camelot. There's no evidence that's emerged that
has caused me concern but I will continue of course to observe it. What
matters is that we have a Lottery that is admired around the world, that is
delivering unprecedented amounts for good causes.
HUMPHRYS: You make that point but-
BOTTOMLEY: A great success story. I want to
continue like that.
HUMPHRYS: But you sound as if you're entirely
happy with the regulatory system that has been set up. Lots of other people
are not. They're deeply concerned about OFLOT - why aren't you?
BOTTOMLEY: I want to be sure that OFLOT (a) did the
job that was necessary - to choose the operator who is going to maximise the
return for good causes and do so efficiently. I've been concerned about
underage play and I'm pleased that more steps have been taken there. Before
agreeing to the Midweek Draw I wanted to be sure there was independent evidence
that there wouldn't be excessive participation.
HUMPHRYS: OFLOT itself believes it ought to have
more powers than it has - why won't you give it to them?
BOTTOMLEY: When the licence comes up for review in
the year 2001, obviously we'll consider the lessons that have been learned on
this occasion. But so far I think the overwhelming view is that this is a
great success story.
HUMPHRYS: Well, that being but that's separate
isn't it? The overwhelming view may or may not be that the Lottery itself is a
great success story and Yes it gives lots of money away and it creates lots of
millionaires and all the rest of it but that doesn't necessarily prove that
everything is hunky dory does it? And, the regulator himself wants more power.
Can I give you one example of why, perhaps, he ought to have that extra power.
Now Camelot has to calculate how much it's likely to pay out in prizes
every year. It's a very difficult calculation to make and last year it got it
wrong. Nobody's saying that it was dreadful that it got it wrong but it
happened to get it wrong. A hundred and thirty-five million pounds they were
left, in effect, holding. Now they got the interest from that money. This may
seem a technical point but we're talking about six million pounds that Camelot
got that it ought not to have had. The Regulator thinks that was wrong but it
can't make Camelot hand the money over because it doesn't have the power to do
so.
BOTTOMLEY: It's a question of seeing the wood for
the trees. As we go forward-
HUMPHRYS: It's a pretty big tree isn't it? Six
million pounds' worth.
BOTTOMLEY: What is an even bigger tree is that in
setting the licence Camelot embarked on a million pound a week penalty clause.
If they hadn't been ready in time-
HUMPHRYS: That's not the point.
BOTTOMLEY: -they would have been fined a million
pounds - it is the point. The point is that when the licence was set there
were a number of conditions in the licence and it may be as time goes by - when
the licence is issued again - there would be some modifications and what I've
said is that I will look at that very carefully. You actually need primary
legislation to make a number of the changes.
HUMPHRYS: Not all of them.
BOTTOMLEY: But what people should recognise is that
the Lottery has delivered more for the good causes than-
HUMPHRYS: I've accepted that.
BOTTOMLEY: -anybody ever, ever anticipated.
HUMPHRYS: I-
BOTTOMLEY: -and what you can't do is change the
goalposts when you're going down the line.
HUMPHRYS: Well, of course you can.
BOTTOMLEY: There's a massive investment-
HUMPHRYS: If you're doing things-If you're heading
off in wrong directions of course you can correct the course.
BOTTOMLEY: But if you're the sort of Government who
sets out one lot of rules and then immediately change the rules you don't
become a Government which business trusts.
HUMPHRYS: No.
BOTTOMLEY: The reason that people want to invest in
Britain, the reason that we have a flourishing industrial and economic culture
in this country now is because we've actually established some principles and
stayed with them. I don't intend to tinker all the way through on the National
Lottery once the licence is in place and that Camelot overwhelmingly are doing
a good job. But neither would I rule out forever and a day ever taking the
view that it was necessary to make modifications.
HUMPHRYS: But, in this particular case, we're
talking about six million pounds of the public's money. That's a sizeable
chunk of money by any standards. It would pay for an awful lot of teachers or
doctors, or nurses, or whatever, wouldn't it? And, you said earlier that you
were prepared to look at the way things are going. Are you perfectly happy
that they keep - just take that six million quid - they keep that?
BOTTOMLEY: Camelot got the operating licence after
an open competition.
HUMPHRYS: I understand all that.
BOTTOMLEY: Eight different people applied, rules
were set according to the way in which that should unfold. They've committed
themselves and they've delivered on their objectives better than anyone
anticipated. I don't think it's appropriately-appropriate to step in and alter
it midway down without very good reason - anymore than with the BBC. Once a
deal has been done, then, the one should suddenly step in and modify the
arrangements midway through.
HUMPHRYS: Well, I think, that if somebody said
that - you know - the BBC Governors, or whatever, or Board of Management; or
even, God Forbid, the presenters; would take in six million quid that
they weren't entitled to. A lot of people would say: hang on, we must do
something about this.
Are you saying that you are happy? If
we could just deal with this particular point because it does get to the issue.
You're happy that they keep that six million pounds?
BOTTOMLEY: The-It's important that the principles
that were set down when the licence was established should be observed. There
may be some elements where it's thought that the next time that there should be
a tightening up. And, if there is-
HUMPHRYS: But, they're going to keep the six
million quid in the meantime?
BOTTOMLEY: What Camelot themselves do, as a private
company, of course - a successful private company - is they've made a number of
decisions about how they're going to invest in charitable objectives
themselves. In the private sector, generally, one per cent profit is not a
huge amount.
HUMPHRYS: I've not even touched on that. You're -
that's a straw dog, isn't it? Straw man. I've not touched on that. I've
dealt with this specific issue of six million. I know, there may be others but
this is one that we've picked out. Can't you just sit there this morning and
say: ah, that isn't right that? Of course, obviously, it isn't right. They
shouldn't have had that six million. We'll tell them give it back. But, you
see, the problem is the regulator can't because he hasn't got the power.
BOTTOMLEY: The Regulator's power is one aspect.
The issue is that the licence was set for Camelot. The rules in it: they've
delivered their-
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
BOTTOMLEY: -objective, which is to roll out the
most successful lottery anywhere in the world.
HUMPHRYS: Take your point.
BOTTOMLEY: Overwhelmingly, it's delivering that.
If there are a number of issues where we should look at it and modify, then,
I'm the first to do so.
HUMPHRYS: Right. Well, so much for the powers of
the Regulator - 'though there are many other areas of that, obviously. But,
let's look at the competence of them, within the powers that they have got.
Now, Alan Williams, the Labour MP on the Public Accounts Committee, said it was
the worst administrative incompetence that he had ever seen in any organisation
that he had ever come across.
BOTTOMLEY: Well, Alan Williams has had his own
agenda and he has been hell bent on giving the Regulator a hard time-
HUMPHRYS: He's not alone.
BOTTOMLEY: -in Public Accounts.
HUMPHRYS: He's not alone
BOTTOMLEY: When they produce a report I shall look
at it and take a view on whether it's necessary to make any modifications but
it would be quite wrong for me now to say that I've already made my mind up on
some hypothetical report which I haven't yet received.
HUMPHRYS: Oh, but hang on, I'm talking as well
about reports that have come out in the past from the Public Accounts
Committee. They were concerned then with all sorts of things and, indeed, the
National Audit Office. I have a copy of their report in front of me and they
point to five areas - quite important areas, in their view - where the Director
General of OFLOT had not checked or verified things that he should have done.
Now, that's not a partisan MP - that is the National Audit Office. You'll not
get much more respectable than that.
BOTTOMLEY: The National Audit Office commented very
favourably, indeed, on the crucical decision of the Regulator, which was the
choice of the licence.
HUMPHRYS: You dealt with that.
BOTTOMLEY: But, that was a crucial decision and in
that licence there were a number of elements which are part of the way in which
the Lottery unfolds. If, and when, the National Audit Office make any other
further reports and the Public Accounts Committee, then that's a subject for
me to look at with my colleagues and decide whether further steps should be
taken.
HUMPHRYS: But it is two years old you know, it's
not as if this has only been running for three months and we're nitpicking at
things. It's two years old, as of yesterday. Here is a report from the
National Audit Office. The Public Accounts Committee has looked at it back in
Spring, published a report then, is looking at it again now because it isn't
satisfied that things have been done and this is a Select Committee which
means total majority on the Committee. They're deeply unhappy with it.
BOTTOMLEY: The evidence is that it's an incredibly
successful Lottery.
HUMPHRYS: That isn't the point.
BOTTOMLEY: Ninety per cent of people are playing
it. Good causes up and down the country are benefiting from it and if
there are points of substance that need further modification, then I'm more
than happy to look at them.
HUMPHRYS: The relationship between the Director
General of OFLOT, Peter Davis and Camelot is something that has worried people
over the years as well isn't it? They're an allegedly cosy relationship. And
are you concerned about that still?
BOTTOMLEY: Well, the Regulator was set up with the
responsibility of ensuring propriety, protecting the amount coming through for
good causes, and preventing excessive participation. His relationship with
the operator inevitably is unlike some of the other regulators, because he
wants to maximise the return to good causes. That is something that Parliament
debated at length, and decided on, not very long ago at all. So far I believe
that the Lottery has been a great success.
HUMPHRYS: Oh, I do.
BOTTOMLEY: And it's delivered those objectives.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, yes, you've-
BOTTOMLEY: There is-There is no-
HUMPHRYS: You make that point frequently, but that
isn't the issue that I'm raising.
BOTTOMLEY: But, there's no suggestion of a lack of
propriety. There's no suggestion of excessive participation. People have
looked, and looked hard, and I myself had wanted independent verification on
that subject.
HUMPHRYS: But, look, you said you were - back in
December I think - that you were on the verge of sacking the Director-General.
BOTTOMLEY: I didn't say that, but there was
concern.
HUMPHRYS: The decision was finely balanced -
that's the precise quote as I recall.
BOTTOMLEY: What I said was that I was concerned
about the decision to accept some flights. He gave an explanation on that
particular matter, and I accepted that explanation.
HUMPHRYS: But if you now add incompetence on the
part of his office to that charge, you would presumably be so finely balanced
you'd tip over the edge and get shot of him.
BOTTOMLEY: Your whole approach has been on the
basis of a number of allegations by some Members of Parliament who have strong
views. What I've made clear is that so far this is a Lottery which around the
world is regarded very highly. We have a Regulator who is taking on a role
with greater rigour, with more responsiblities than other regulators elsewhere
in the world.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Is he on probation. Let me
just ask you that?
BOTTOMLEY: The same way as I will keep the
distribution of the Lottery funds under review, so if it's necessary to have
additional powers or modifications of the way in which the Regulator works, so
also I will look with an open mind at that.
HUMPHRYS; Or a different Regulator? You're
open-minded on that as well?
BOTTOMLEY: Well, so far what's been achieved?
HUMPHRYS: No, no, let's not-let's not-
BOTTOMLEY The introduction of a very successful-
HUMPHRYS: Let's not go over all that again
because you have many times.
BOTTOMLEY: I do not think it is a hanging offence
to introduce the most successful lottery anywhere in the world.
HUMPHRYS: No, no, no, no. But look, alright.
You've said that many times, the most successful lottery in the world. It has
no competition, it is the newest in the world, therefore has the best
information technology, therefore it ought to be the best in the world. What
I've been dealiang with in this interview is the level of competence in the
administration. Now it may be that if things were being done differently there
would have been more money raised, there would have been more prizes handed
out; there would have been more of this, that and the other. So you can't
keep, with great respect, going back to what has happened. You have to look at
what might have happened under different circumstances.
BOTTOMLEY: No. I'm sorry, I think the evidence you
have to look at is what other lotteries do in other countries and there isn't a
lottery that's done so well. I mean, look at Labour. They didn't even vote
for the Lottery on the Second Reading. They've spent all their time attacking
Camelot because they're a profit-making company. They've gone on and on about
wanting a not-for profit operator. We now hear they've done a U-turn on that.
You can't trust Labour on the Lottery.
HUMPHRYS: Alright.
BOTTOMLEY: What's happened is, a carefully
regulated, successful lottery, which continues to be kept under review because
we want the good causes to benefit.
HUMPHRYS: Let's switch track for a moment if we
may, and talk about violence on television. You were very concerned about that
a while ago. You called in the Director-General - the Chairman of the BBC
Board of Governors, the Chairman of the ITC. We have now seen this week from
the BBC a new set of guidelines. Are you satisfied that that deals with the
problem as you see it?
BOTTOMLEY: I'm encouraged that the issue has been
taken seriously by the BBC. It remains the case that violence is the issue
that people most often complain about if you ask them what they're worried
about. It seems to me that it is very important that we have a look to the
long-term effect on young people of watching cumulative amounts of violence.
I've asked the regulators to come and see me again. We've taken extra powers.
HUMPHRYS: The Chairmen of the organisations, yes?
BOTTOMLEY: That's the Chairman of the BBC, the
Chairman of the Independent Telelvision Commission, to say what more can we do.
HUMPHRYS: So you don't think they've gone far
enough. You don't think the BBC in its new set of guidlines has gone far
enough?
BOTTOMLEY: Well, it isn't only a question of
guidelines, it's a question of delivering the guidelines. Fine words are fine,
but it's actually implementation that matters. The Broadcasting Standards
Commission have had their power strengthened in the recent Broadcasting Act.
But I think the people of this country are worried about the next generation
growing up to be citizens who are rounded citizens and to link the work on
television with actually what's happening on the Lottery, what we want is
worthwhile activity for young people.
HUMPHRYS: So you you are still not satisfied
with what we're seeing on our television screens? You believe there is too
much violence and you want the BBC and Independent Television, for that matter,
to do more?
BOTTOMLEY: I think there's been a fall in the
number of violent incidents. I think the suggestion is-
HUMPHRYS: But not enough.
BOTTOMLEY: The issue is, not only the fall in the
incidents, it's the way in which they're portrayed. So, that if it's a very
evocative, powerful account of some violence that can have an effect. I think
as one distinguished professor of child psychiatry said: you know, the goals in
a football match may be less than one per cent of the match, but it's the goals
you remember. And I don't think we can afford to be complacent, and I want to
be sure that the public are confident, and I want to be sure that our
youngsters who do watch more television - often on their own - also have
worthwhile activities to do away from the television screen-No- because the
issue is what is the power of television on people's lives? And it's actually
having people watching television in a group with their parents, and other
things. It helps them not be so intimately affected by the material.
HUMPHRYS: But isn't there a bit of political
posturing in this, because technology means that you cannot in fact censor
violence - if that's what you want to do - because you can always go out a buy
a video tape, you can get something fed to you over a satellite or whatever it
happens to be? There's no way you can actually stop it,
BOTTOMLEY: Well, Tom Sackville-
HUMPHRYS: That's the Home Office Minister.
BOTTOMLEY: -only recently has set up - with the
Home Office - has set up discussions with the British Board of Film
Classification, to make sure that they are taking seriously the question of
videos, video-games and film. I, myself, the other day prescribed a satellite
channel coming in from Europe. There are powers-
HUMPHRYS: Except you can't.
BOTTOMLEY: Well, you can outlaw advertising,
selling the Smart Cards, being involved in the programme material at all. Of
the last two occasions that's happened, won by myself. The programme actually
came to an end. So it's been a fairly effective means so far. But it seems to
me that with this great explosion we're going to have of broadcasting with more
channels being available as the result of the Broadcasting Act, we have to hold
onto those standards of public service broadcasting for which this country has
always been so well known. I'm confident that we're going to do that.
HUMPHRYS: Mrs Bottomley, thank you very much
indeed.
|