§ Mr. PendryTo ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what opportunities were given by his Department or the GAH group of consultants to(a) individuals, (b) private companies and (c) foreign Governments to express their willingness to have the information supplied to him published; and what number of each category indicated such willingness;
(2) how many invitations his Department or the GAH group issued to (a) individuals, (h) private companies and (c) foreign Governments requesting information towards his Department's report on the national lottery which were declined; and what was the reason given in each case;
(3) if he will publish a table showing the total number of (a) individuals, (b) private companies and (c) foreign Governments supplying information to the GAH report which he has contacted requesting permission to publish (i) those parts of the report which do not contain commercially sensitive information and (ii) the report in full; on what dates, and by which method, each request was made; and what further action he intends to take with remaining numbers in each category to pursue permission to publish (1) those parts of the report which do not contain commercially sensitive information and (2) the report in full;
(4) how many (a) individuals, (b) private companies and (c) foreign Governments were consulted by the GAH group of consultants or his Department in compiling his Department's report on the national lottery; and how many in each category requested to him in advance of supplying information that their evidence be treated as commercial in confidence.
§ Mr. Brooke[holding answer 21 January 1993]: The GAH group consulted publicly available documents and reports from lotteries throughout the world, and sought supplementary information by means of a questionnaire, after promising that both the approach and the answers would remain confidential, and that the ensuing report would not be published. Twenty-seven state lotteries responded to the confidential questionnaire. In one instance the assurance of confidentiality was not considered sufficient for the lottery operator to venture any information at all. Much of the information provided is commercially confidential to the operators concerned.
I have not contacted the respondents to re-open the original assurance of confidentiality. Unanimous consent would be necessary for the report to be published, and in many cases the respondents have made it clear from the start that they would under no circumstances allow the information they provided to be made public.