................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
CHRIS SMITH INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 29.3.98
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: The Government wants to change the way
the National Lottery is run. There's going to be a new law which means another
"good cause" will be added to the existing ones. The difference is that THIS
one will shell out cash to anyone the government chooses.... things like health
and education perhaps, all very deserving, but is this what the Lottery was
MEANT to do?
The Culture Secretary Chris Smith is
with me, and if I may I'll come to that in a moment having set it up. But the
story this morning first about these commemorative knives, to commemorate the
World Cup in France on sale. I'd have thought you wouldn't be very pleased
about that?
CHRIS SMITH: Well, we're certainly not very pleased
about that, and particularly in the aftermath of the tragedy at Gillingham last
night, this is something that is of great concern. It was actually only
picked up when my Sports Minister, Tony Banks, was over in France discussing
arrangements for the World Cup, and discovered these knives on sale in shops in
France, there to commemorative supposedly the World Cup. We're bringing a lot
of pressure to bear now through diplomatic channels to see if we can get these
knives removed from sale, because it's not only in practical terms something
that's very worrying, but also it sends completely the wrong signal.
HUMPHRYS: Any response from the French government?
SMITH: At the moment they're considering our
representations. In the aftermath of what happened yesterday we're going to
step those up.
HUMPHRYS: Let me move on to another story this
morning, that your leadership considered using Number Ten to help raise funds
from big corporate donors, in other words access to Number Ten, access to the
Prime Minister in return for funds offered to the Party. Now that seems to
suggest that you've not yet cottoned onto the difference between Party and
Prime Minister.
SMITH: Oh, we're very well aware of the
difference, and in fact the leadership never considered it. This was a paper
that was prepared by a middle-ranking official as a proposal. The moment it
got anywhere near senior officials, they said this is completely inappropriate,
not something that any Party, any Government should do. It was spiked and no
more was heard of it.
HUMPHRYS: But you can see why people might be
concerned about it. I mean, the links perhaps, they will say, with the Bernie
Eccleston affair, the man who gave a million pounds to the Party. Tony Blair
just this past week, talking to the Italian Prime Minister on behalf it was
said, of Rupert Murdoch. People will kind of add one and one and two and two
together, won't they?
SMITH: No, the rule is very clear, and it's
very strictly adhered to by all of us; and, that is that there should be no
favoured access to anyone, Prime Minister, Cabinet member, any Minister, any
part of the Government; no favoured access at all, simply because someone
happens to be a member of the Labour Party, a supporter of the Labour Party or
a donor to the Labour Party. The two are very distinct.
HUMPHRYS: Why then, did Alastair Campbell on
behalf of the Prime Minister deny that those conversations with Mr Prodi had
taken place, or at least that Rupert Murdoch was mentioned, when he clearly had
been.
SMITH: Well, the conversation with Mr Prodi
was actually a call from Mr Prodi at Mr Prodi's behest about-
HUMPHRYS: It didn't make any difference did it?
SMITH: -many things, and indeed Mr Prodi
specifically asked at the outset of the conversation I understand, that
it should be a matter of confidence between the two Prime Ministers. I think,
it's important that Prime Ministers should be able to talk in confidence to
each other.
HUMPHRYS: But not that Prime Minister's spokesmen
should not tell the truth on their behalf?
SMITH: But the Prime Minister's Spokesman as
far as I'm aware was simply saying that the contents of the conversation were
confidential and that is absolutely appropriate in the circumstances.
HUMPHRYS: I think he used the word and he spelled
it out - C-R-A-P - in response to the first question.
SMITH: Alastair Campbell's language, as ever,
is robust.
HUMPHRYS: And misleading?
SMITH: Not necessarily at all.
HUMPHRYS: Let's turn to other matters then. The
Lottery - which you came here primarily to talk about. Just to remind you -
remind the listeners, remind the viewers - that when the Lottery was set up
five years ago the rules quite clearly said that Lottery money - money raised
from the Lottery - would not be used for sort of core Government spending, the
kind of things that we spend our taxes on at the moment. You're changing that
rule now aren't you?
SMITH: No, we're not. We're actually holding
very fast to that rule because that's what's known in the jargon of the trade
as additonality - that means that Lottery money should not be used to replace
Exchequer spending. That rule remains very very firmly in place. It was in
place with the last Government to give them credit. It's in place still and we
hold very fast to it.
HUMPHRYS: But you're using lottery money for
instance, to fund the Kids' Clubs. Now, that is core Government spending
because without the Kids' Clubs some crucial policies wouldn't work.
SMITH: No, what we're doing with the new stream
of good cause money that we're creating with the Lottery Bill is targetting
projects that are connected with Health, Education and the Environment in ways
that help the core delivery of service but don't replace it. So we're not for
example using the money in order to employ nurses, or fund operations, which
quite correctly are the business of Central Government through taxation but
what we are doing is enabling the setting up of healthy living centres in the
high street, on-in the shopping mall, on housing estates; we're enabling the
setting up of Kids' Clubs, Out of School Hours Clubs ...
HUMPHYS: Will it actually be necessary,
essential, will it not?
SMITH: This is something which has never been
done on this scale in this country before. So we're not actually replacing
anything that's happened before, we're adding value to the education.
HUMPHRYS: Oh, that's splitting hairs, isn't it? I
mean the fact is you want those clubs - the Kids' Clubs - that is part of your
policy. If you hadn't raised the money through the Lottery you would have
raised the money through taxation. That's what you would have done - surely?
Otherwise you're telling me that it's a kind of peripheral thing and it's not.
SMITH The choice is not between raising taxes
or raising money through the Lottery. It's through either using the Lottery
money for this purpose or not doing it at all and we believe that it is
a sensible way of using Lottery money. And actually in the responses that we
had to the White Paper when we - which we issued last July, sent out the White
Paper, widespread consultation - ninety per cent of the people who responded to
that White Paper said: we believe these are very good proposals.
HUMPHRYS: Ah, that's a different matter because if
you ask people whether they'd like the Lottery money to be used on the Health
Service - let's say,to provide extra nurses, or beds - I bet you they'd say yes
to that as well.
SMITH: Well they might do but we're not
proposing that.
HUMPHRYS: No, precisely. So it-
SMITH: There has to be a very clear line
between what is the core responsibility of government and what can be added to
it. It's exactly the same, actually, as the last government did in the fields
of arts, sports and heritage with the Lottery. These were fields that were
already being funded by government, to a certain extent, they said let's use
Lottery money to add to that, not to replace what's being done at the moment,
to add to it and that is precisely what we're now doing in the fields of
education and health as well.
HUMPHRYS: Well take education then. You're going
to use Lottery money to train some teachers in IT, so that they can educate
children how to use IT better.
SMITH: Teachers and public librarians - we
mustn't forget the real importance of the public library.
HUMPHRYS: Absolutely not. Well, now again, that
surely is called Government Spending. Certainly Nigel de Gruchy, trade union
leader, Teachers' Union leader, believes it is. He said it's a vital part of
education, it's now going to be seen as a charity.
SMITH: No, it's a one off exercise to help all
of those existing teachers who did their teacher training in the years before
Information Technology and computers and the use of digital technology became
anything familiar to either teachers or pupils. And what we are doing is
saying let's earmark a portion of Lottery money to ensure that those teachers
and public librarians can come up to speed on the ability to use and teach
Information Technology.
HUMPHRYS: More spending.
SMITH: It doesn't mean that the traditional
teacher training courses that people now coming into the teaching profession
will be funded by the Lottery, they won't, they'll be funded by the exchequer
in the same way that they always have. This is a one-off exercise, again to
add value to what teachers can do in the classroom and librarians in the public
library.
HUMPHRYS: I'm not sure that it matters whether
it's a one off exercise or not because if there are enough one off exercises
you find it being whittled away and whittled away and whittled away. And this
is exactly what's happening isn't it. You breach the basic principle, from now
on you can do any number of things - say it was only a one off exercise - do it
again.
SMITH: We haven't breached the basic principle
at all. These are all things that haven't been done up to now, haven't been
funded by the exchequer up to now. We are not replacing exchequer expenditure.
And actually the theological argument about whether this is additional or not,
whether it replaces or not - I'm saying it doesn't - but, actually that is all
theological because I think if you ask most people in this country: do they
believe that giving kids the chance to go somewhere after school to engage in
arts and sports activity, to do their homework. Do you think it's right that
our teachers should be able to learn about new technology and pass that onto
our kids. I think the overwhelming majority of people would say yes. Those are
good things and we like to know that our Lottery money, the money we spend week
by week.
HUMPHRYS: I'm not arguing for a moment whether
they are good things or not. But let me remind you of what Tony Blair said. He
said Lottery money should not be used for, and I quote, "government
responsibilities". Now, what you are doing and you've added this in, you're
saying existing responsibilities. Well, it's a cop-out that isn't it.
SMITH: No, it's not a cop-out at all. Very
clear, right the way through and there's a litany of quotations from the
previous Prime Minister, the previous Secretary of State, from the present
Prime Minister, from myself, right the way through the last two years, making
the very clear point that the thing about Lottery money is it can't be used for
on-going revenue commitments and it cannot be used to replace existing
exchequer expenditure. That's very clear, it has to add value, it has to do
things which aren't being done at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: One would like to think everything you
do adds value.
SMITH: And that principle we are sticking very
strictly to.
HUMPHRYS: But now you have this fifth fund,
there's nothing to stop you, is there, sixth fund, I obviously need some of
your training, sixth fund, you've got five, you're adding the extra one on.
There's nothing to stop you, is there, raiding the other funds and the
millennium fund has got to go anyway in another couple of years, nothing to
stop you raiding the other funds for extra money for your sixth fund, is there?
SMITH: No, what we've said is very clearly
there's a billion pounds between now and 2001, for this new fund. And the
reason that we can do that without harming the interests of the other funds, is
that the success of the Lottery, the number of people in particular playing the
midweek draw as well as the Saturday draw, means that actually more money is
coming into the good cause pot from the Lottery, than anyone had expected at
the outset. So each of the existing good causes, the arts, sport, heritage,
charities, will get exactly the amount, one point eight billion, that they were
always intending and intended to get. And we can protect that and use the
extra that's come in, in order to help health and education.
HUMPHRYS: Is that an absolute guarantee? An
absolute commitment that you will not take another penny from those-
SMITH: Yes. We have said that very clearly and
we have written in terms to all the Lottery distributers saying one point eight
billion is what you were promised at the outset and that is what you will get.
HUMPHRYS: Are there going to be more draws? Lots
of people are suggesting there's no reason why you shouldn't have one every
day, six draws a week.
SMITH: There's no proposal of that kind on the
table at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: Not yet.
SMITH: If and when anyone were to suggest that
formally, it would of course be up to the Director General of OFLOT to make a
proper decision about whether this was appropriate or not. And the thing that
he would need to bear in mind, is his very clear duty under the Act, that the
National Lottery should not encourage unnecessary gambling. And that is
something that he is under a duty to ensure and that would be the point that he
would have to consider, if such a proposal were put forward.
HUMPHRYS: If that's your view, six days would be
that, wouldn't it?. Why can't you say this morning: we wouldn't consider it.
SMITH: It would be up to him to make that
decision, not up to me. I don't have the judicial authority and I don't want to
queer his pitch by-
HUMPHRYS: Your not saying that he under the law
could simply introduce six draws a week and you couldn't do anything to stop
him?
SMITH: He is charged with making that decision.
HUMPHRYS: You could override it?
SMITH: No, he has the legal authority to do it
and I would expect him in such circumstances to bear in mind very clearly that
duty that he has not to encourage excessive gambling.
HUMPHRYS: Alright then, in that case, is it your
view that six draws a week would be encouraging excessive gambling.
SMITH: Well, if I gave my view I might be
leading him towards a particular conclusion-
HUMPHRYS: Well indeed.
SMITH: -and I wouldn't want to do that.
HUMPHRYS: Why not?
SMITH: What I've said, however, is it would be
a very clear duty on him to make a decision as to whether this involved
excessive incitement to gamble. And I would look to him to make that judgement
and to make it very carefully on the basis of the evidence.
HUMPHRYS: It sounds to me as if you're at least
agnostic on this thing. You're certainly not totally opposed in principle
are you?
SMITH: What I'm not going to do is make a
judgment, instantly here and now, when it is actually up to him to make that
judgment and I don't want to affect that legal duty which it's placed upon him.
HUMPHRYS: Now, the BBC Lottery - the new Lottery
Show last night, that involves Scratch Cards - what's you view about it? You
know, Gerald Kaufman thinks that it shouldn't have been shown, the BBC were
wrong to do it - what's your view now that it's been on the telly?
SMITH: Well, I must confess, I had a speaking
engagement last night so I wasn't able to see it. I will, however, be wanting
to watch it and see the content of the programme.
HUMPHRYS: But, you know what happens?
SMITH: There was, of course, the mistake of the
forty balls, rather than the fifty balls, which is-now has to be dealt with and
I'm actually pleased that Camelot have said very rapidly that they will pay out
on either of the set of four numbers that came up on the different judgments on
that. But, I, nonetheless, will, again, be looking to the Director General of
OFLOT to keep a very careful watch on Camelot to make sure that they're
operating in this matter with complete propriety.
HUMPHRYS: But, you mean-you know what happened on
that programme. You were able, as everybody else to buy one of those cards
that shows you what the conditions are. Gerald Kaufman said absolutely no
question, having seen the cards and all the rest of it, that it blatantly
breaches the BBC's Guidelines. Well, you're responsible for the BBC - you can't
duck this one and hand it over to the OFLOT man, can you? This is down to you.
SMITH: The Chairman of the BBC and all the
Governors have very clearly said that they've looked also at the Guidelines,
they've looked at the Charter, they've looked at the Agreement and their
conclusion is that it doesn't breach the Charter and they're not operating
outside the Producers' Guidelines.
HUMPHRYS: And, Kaufman's answer to that is: well,
they would, wouldn't they?
SMITH: Oh, well, Gerald Kaufman's answer is
that he believes they are. Now, I need to make a careful judgment, having seen
the programme. I'm not prepared to make a judgment without seeing the
programme.
HUMPHRYS: But, you know, you don't need to have
seen the programme to know that if you-
SMITH: I will want to make a careful judgment
as to whether I think the BBC Chairman is right. I think, this is an area that
he needs to operate with very great care on because the key point about the
Charter, which is at issue here, is that the BBC as a public service
broadcaster should not be in the business of promoting a private product - a
scratch card, for example. Now, the key question is: did the content of the
programme promote the sale of Scratch Cards?
HUMPHRYS: Not whether merely having to buy the
card to get on the show promotes it? I mean, wouldn't you have thought that
promotes it?
SMITH: That-That, I think, is a matter that has
been dealt with by the Board of Governors.
HUMPHRYS: To your satifaction?
SMITH: To my general satisfaction but the
question about whether the content of the programme induces the sale of Scratch
Cards is one that I will want to make a judgment on, once I've actually seen
the programme?
HUMPHRYS: So, you'll be popping home to look at a
video of it - when you will tell us about that?
SMITH: Well, I will be having a very careful
look at it and, then, taking the matter further, if necessary, with the
Chairman of the Governors.
HUMPHRYS: Let's look a little bit into the future.
You said that the next operator of Camelot - of the National Lottery - would
have to be a no-profit operator. That's to say Camelot couldn't keep it
because they do it for profit - the next one will. Are you beginning to move
away from that a little bit now?
SMITH: What we've always said is that we will
seek an efficient, not-for-profit operator and that remains very much our wish.
HUMPHRYS: A hundred per cent commitment?
SMITH: If-If we can find someone coming along
who's - on all the evidence we have available to us, going to operate it on a
not-for-profit basis, no one will be more pleased than I. What we have, also,
said is that we do not want the sort of open ended profit mechanism that is in
the current contract. And, so, that is the basis on which we will be going out
to invite approaches for the new franchise as it-as we near the date when it
comes up for-for the taking and we will be looking to make sure that the very
careful judgment at that time is on two bases. No excessive profit and the
maximum return for the good causes.
HUMPHRYS: Chris Smith, thank you very much, indeed
and that's it for this week. Next week, the Education Secretary, David
Blunkett. Until then, Good Afternoon.
...oooOOooo...
|