National Lottery: Operating Responsibilities (Hansard, 11 December 2000)

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, the award of the National Lottery operating licence and the terms of that licence are a matter for the National Lottery Commission. The commission has not specified the number of terminals under a new licence, but it will require the successful applicant to commit to a 96 minimum number of terminals and a wide geographic spread. The Government have given the National Lottery Commission a clear remit to ensure that there is no interruption in the smooth running of the National Lottery. The commission is confident that that will be achieved.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, the commission will not be much more than a fig leaf of protection for the Government if anything should go wrong. Does the Minister agree that it would be a huge risk to change both the operator and the provider of the technology in one move? Does he realise how complex the operation is? There is the selection and appointment of the retailers, the purchase of terminals, their installation and testing, the training of staff and the establishment of a huge communications network. I am sure that the Government understand that any interruption or hitch would result in a lack of public confidence and the flow of funds to good causes being turned off.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I agree that the operation is very complicated. As the noble Lord rightly said, it involves a number of members of the consortium, the retailers and the public, whom I may call the punters. If we take his argument to its logical extreme, no change could be allowed in the operating consortium or the systems to be used. That would result in whoever got the contract first having it in perpetuity. I think that he will agree that there could be disadvantages in that.

§ Lord Mancroft
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the new operator has to install 30,000 terminals? I must declare an interest. I am a lottery operator, although I have no interest in the National Lottery. I am sure that, like all of us in the lottery industry, the Minister is aware that it is physically impossible to install 30,000, or even 20,000, terminals in the time that is left. If the present timetable is to be kept to, either the existing operator, which has already been told that it is not fit and proper, will have to continue for a period, or a new operator—I gather that the only one is Sir Richard Branson's organisation, which has never run a lottery before—will have to be up and running very quickly. I assume that Sir Richard knows that ours is the most complex lottery in the world. Are the Government going to allow the situation to continue?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, that was a rather complicated speech rather than a question, or even two questions, which I am obliged to answer. I did not say that there had to be a minimum of 30,000 terminals; I said that it was up to the commission to require the successful applicant to commit to a minimum number of terminals. Clearly, the more terminals there are, the more likely it is that a successful applicant will achieve the best financial return to the good causes, which is the ultimate criterion for deciding who is to be the successful applicant. As to the changeover, as the noble Lord well knows, there are two applicants before the 97 commission, which will take a decision next week. If necessary, it may rule that Camelot will continue for a period to ensure a successful and smooth changeover.

§ Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
My Lords, I am a lottery player. Will the Minister ensure that the Government impress on the successful applicant the need for more transparency and clarity on the social classes that play the lottery and the amount that they contribute? It is very difficult to get those figures out of Camelot, but it is manifestly obvious that it is basically the working class who play the lottery and the good causes benefit from them. That should be borne in mind in future distributions.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, as a non-lottery player, I express my sympathy with my noble friend and my gratitude to him and all lottery players for their contributions to good causes. The social class of those who contribute to the lottery and those who benefit from it is a proper subject for social survey work. As the existing operator, Camelot could undertake such work if it wished to. It is not for the Government to do so.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I was pleased to see the Sydney Opera House built with lottery funds. I have long been a supporter of lottery funds and believe that they are preferable to higher taxation. However, can the Minister explain why even Camelot, by whom we were all invited approximately a year ago to see a presentation, would have to install totally new terminals if its bid were successful? I understand that whoever wins the bid will have to start with new equipment, and Camelot said that it could sell off its old equipment. Was that condition applied simply in order to create a level playing field for new contenders?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I love the Sydney Opera House, too. To that extent, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. It is true that, in order to ensure a level playing field, Camelot has been told that it will have to install new equipment. However, as its equipment is already at least six years old, I understand that a phased introduction of new equipment would in any event have to be carried out in order to keep up with new technology.

§ Lord Pilkington of Oxenford
My Lords, are the Government worried about the fact that failure of technology associated with Sir Richard Branson, which has resulted in his company failing in its promises, has already led to fines of approximately £2 million in the United States? Does that concern the Government?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, failure of any member of either consortium would be a matter of concern to the National Lottery Commission. I 98 understand that failures have occurred in almost all the equipment produced by manufacturers in many countries in the world.

§ Lord Swinfen
My Lords, who will be responsible for disposing of the redundant terminals in an environmentally safe and satisfactory manner?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, refers to Camelot's terminals, Camelot will be responsible for their disposal.

§ Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my noble friends are right to point to some of the chaos that has ensued this year while a new operator has been sought. Can the Minister assure the House today that the Government, as well as the commission, are confident that there will be no hiatus between the end of the operation of this licence and the effective running of the new licence for the lottery? Secondly, with regard to the date that the Minister mentioned in relation to a decision being made, can he assure the House that any decision on the lottery successor will take place while the House is in session and that the House will have the opportunity to comment on it?

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the National Lottery Commission intends that a decision will be taken while the House is sitting. As to whether there will be an opportunity for a Statement, that is of course a matter for the usual channels and not for the Government. With regard to the issue of the extension of Camelot's contract, to which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred, and the issue of there being no interruption in the service, for their part the Government have given a clear remit to the National Lottery Commission. We understand that the commission is confident that there will be no hiatus.