1. Memorandum submitted by
the Council for Advancement of Arts, Recreation and Education
(CAARE)
SUMMARY
A. OVERALL
1. Who is responsible for the Lottery?
Politicians, civil servants, heads of quangos,
Treasury personalities, the operator.
2. Structural Mission of the Lottery
This should be "non-profit making";
a State Lottery, as is usual in Europe and the USA.
3. Changing the image and improving the profile
The Lottery should be linked to a programme
that will reach the entire populace, concentrating on the 10 million
young between seven and 21. Role models, and the careful structuring
of a series of inspirational images in the arts and sports are
all-important.
3. Grass roots universality
A universal Lottery system is required to prevent
the bulk of the populace feeling separated from the whole process.
B. LICENSING
AND REGULATION
1. How the Lottery has been used to justify
a growth of the world of gambling and advertising
Distinction of the Lottery from heavy gambling;
Labour support for profit making; Lottery improvements omitted
from the Budd Report; Lottery's special position in the gambling
market—all gambling should contribute to the NLDF.
2. Minimum personnel needed to license and
regulate the National Lottery
All aspects of the Lottery require regulation
by a body which understands the importance of selling a wholly
credible product. CAARE proposes that Ray Bates should be appointed
as an Advising Consultant to provide appropriate answers to these
questions. The Regulating Committee should also oversee the distribution
of the NLDF.
C. DISTRIBUTION
AND FUNDING
1. Treasury's structure, priorities and thought
processes
This must be reformed so that it reflects the
daily needs of all people, and not just in a "token"
fashion. The responsibility of the DCMS should match that of the
DfES.
2. OLYMPIC
BID
This should be proudly paid for by the State,
and not by the Lottery which should invest only in the universal
plan.
3. "Does the National Lottery have the
right focus?"
No.
A. OVERALL
The response to the overall question "Will
the proposed changes ultimately lead to more resources for good
causes?" depends on a careful analysis of the reasons
for various failures in the past, and the importance of change
to foster improvement. The issues divide into the following areas:
1. Who is responsible for the Lottery?
The lack of clarity on this point is best summed
up under five headings:
(a) Politicians. The inevitable changes
in this area, joined with the relatively short duration of their
position, means that the focus is shifting constantly. Whoever
comes next into the respective chairs is not likely to remain
for the minimum of five years necessary to achieve a fundamental
change in the public psyche.
(b) Civil Servants. No highly specialised
schooling is required for those shaping the lottery, arts, sports
programmes, and change is sometimes very frequent (one sport leader
position in the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) changed
once every month for three months towards the end of 2003) so
that a long, experienced dialogue with all aspects of public thought
is difficult to maintain.
(c) Heads of Quangos. In our experience
most of these, although nominally responsible people, are in fact
required to follow the dictates from the DCMS, which in their
turn follow guidelines which tend to change frequently.
(d) Treasury personalities. In a conversation
with Sir Alan Budd concerning whether economists should make decisions
on cultural, emotional training, physical education or sporting
matters on which they may not have received specialised training,
he revealed that he thought "not". Many final decisions
are made by unnamed people, sometimes not even the heads of the
Public Service department in the Treasury.[1]
Similarly, proposals made by the CMS Committee,
including specialist advice, are sometimes rejected out of hand.
This must often be on a purely financial basis, instead of the
balanced evaluation of the cultural void in which the UK has been
plunged for some decades.
(e) The Operator. When the DCMS has
omitted to supply a clear image for the Lottery it is left to
the operator to provide a new selling point—such as the
"Billy Connolly Lotto" campaign—which might attract
only one part of the potential public, yet always taking greed
as the chief, isolated selling point. With the growing competition
from other forms of gambling, Camelot are obliged to focus their
publicity on their own name, although it has been tarnished for
some years with an image of profiteering. How can Lottery sales
improve on this complex basis?
2. Structural Mission of the Lottery
Ideally this should be "non-profit-making",
as most other lotteries in the world, which are monopolies and
consequently not for profit. During the damaging conflict between
Camelot and Sir Richard Branson, we formed and registered the
UK Lottery Company, to be able to run a "not-for-profit"
lottery, as this would enhance the image of the lottery. Sir Richard
Branson's many other business interests make it difficult for
him to take on the lottery, without reimbursing to it the full
value to his other businesses of the regular promotion of his
name at peak time TV and radio twice a week at least. In trade
magazines this was estimated as amounting close to £2 billion
a year.
Considering the large amounts the Treasury has
made from the lottery to date, and the possibility of increasing
its sales, the case for the Lottery to become a State lottery,
in which the Treasury guarantees the sums which are currently
required of the operator is strong. If the Lottery achieves the
image which we propose below, of becoming the strongest and most
positive crime and obesity prevention programme in the country,
the savings to Treasury would be many times greater, underlining
the value of it handling the financing of the operator.
3. Changing the image and improving the profile
This can only come about quickly, if the Lottery
is linked fundamentally to a programme to reach the entire populace,
concentrating on the young between seven and 21. The huge enthusiasm
for the competition engendered by "Pop Idol" is the
type of rivalry which the Lottery could and should create, by
linking its product—ie where the money for good causes is
invested—with the daily activities of all. This requires
the distributor and operator to be of one mind, with highly experienced
direction.
If every sport has a role model—not seen
as a talking head, (which is sometimes disappointing) but shown
only doing what she or he excels in, then every image connected
to the lottery is exhilarating. If every part of the country can
offer some growth of access, such as with sporting and gym facilities,
in and out of schools, there will be visible competition between
a huge range of centres and the desire to shine will be stimulated;
a sense of virile growth is engendered.
If the lottery sales are then connected to this
life-giving activity, all feel that it affects them personally.
As long ago as 1993 we referred to the "Pavarotti principle"[2].
The association of his voice with the World Cup (singing "vincero"—I
will win) has become ingrained, so that his voice is beloved of
all, without protest.
The careful structuring of a series of inspiring
images, linked to competition—selected by age groups, first
one year, then older, then younger, and other systems to stimulate
a reason for repetition without fear of stagnation—then
within three or four years the activities the lottery is seen
as promoting can become second nature to all.
Admonition about obesity, and frightening predictions,
risk setting up a self-protective reaction, just as forbidding
smoking seems in many cases to stimulate it, whereas the attraction
to a shining, positive set of activities reaches the same goal
by exciting, even joyful means.
3.1 Aspects of imaging
Achieving a "high" through sports
and arts.
(a) Sports. The higher points of this
process should be mentioned now, because of their relevance to
reducing the need for drugs and alcohol misuses. Regular participants
in a sport or in strong physical exercise can experience a "high"
without the need for chemical help such as drugs or alcohol. Steve
Redgrave or Jonathan Edwards will vouch for this[3].
Making the achievement of these physical "highs" a regular,
healthy experience which is damaged if the training is only partial,
or is countered by undue use of alcohol, provides an invaluable
aim for the Lottery to achieve.
(b) Arts. The Times (29 December.2003)
quoted CAARE's letter to Tessa Jowell,[4]
in which we mentioned developing the "subtle aspects of human
emotion, and the regular achievement of bliss, inner joy and spiritual
uplift" through the arts. All are, or should be a responsibility
of the DCMS.
There are many routes available to these states,
whether visual, aural or tactile. The power of live theatre is
greater than that of the cinema or TV, because it requires the
active participation of the audience members to be complete. A
TV or cinema screen is quite indifferent to any emotional feedback
from the members of the observing audience. The performances of
live, unamplified music are affected by the emotional and even
spiritual contribution of the audience, making the participation
integral to the whole. That applies to a solo guitar, a group
or even a symphony orchestra. The performer feels it and thus
changes his/her performance.
Spiritual awareness can be learned even from
an early age, and is best when quite separate from any religious
teachings or faiths, which risk being mainly mental, and linked
to material matters. These harmless techniques are all teachable,
as several publications describe.[5]
First steps in "putting youngsters in touch
with their emotions" have already been taken by the Government,
based on Daniel Goleman's excellent "emotional intelligence"
principles.[6]
His approach links mental and emotional aspects together. Fuller
emotional maturity develops sometimes without such verbal analysis,
but through a wide range of emotional participation.[7]
The slow integration of these fulfilling activities
with the help of NESA's guidance indicate why boredom should never
be associated with the Lottery and its product or, once it starts
to lead the country in these areas, the DCMS for at least the
next 10 years. These huge windows on a rich, fulfilled life should
be seen as the peaks of the "quality of life" aim of
the Lottery.
Our list of statements from other lottery operators
which have successfully changed their images[8]
has already influenced the DCMS and Camelot. In nearly all successful
cases there has been a single organisation linking collection
and distribution of the funds, enabling a clear, effective image
to be decisive. This has obviated meaningless rivalry.
4. Grass roots universality
The payments from the lottery have been reactive,
relying on acceptable applications from valid projects. The expenses
associated with the applications, and the lack of universality
of any project, have meant that the bulk of the populace feels
itself separated from the whole process. It takes little or no
pride in the way projects develop.
The uniting idea, first proposed by the Rothschild
Royal Commission on Gambling in 1978, and reiterated by Sir Robin
Day[9],
of the funds being distributed by an independent charity, allows
this principle of universality to be set up and remain as a virile
force. We have proposed the title "National Endowment for
Sport and Arts"[10],
because that allows the permanent growth of the central funding
to bring about these participation activities in every corner
of the country. The way in which the National Lottery Distribution
Fund (NLDF) reserve has been invested, shows one way of setting
up an endowment, but the key part of the process is that no constantly
changing set of criteria should be set up, which prevent a regular
growth plan from developing.
The Prime Minister has expressed a desire, shared
by many, that fitness in the country should increase. The DCMS
Sports paper, Game Plan, envisages a 70% increase in fitness by
2020! But a long-term plan, which does not have the fundamental
structure we propose, risks being changed and remodelled almost
every year, at budget time. The vital infrastructure organisations,
and the vast number of linked voluntary organisations, would be
built upon sand. That is why we believe that this central endowment
fund, for participation in sport and arts, should be enriched
with funds not only from the lottery, but also all the harder
forms of gambling and from the State.
We propose a system of televised competition
from every corner of the country to excel in participation. This
would allow an open rivalry between sectors of gambling, bingo,
casinos, and racing, to vaunt the size of their contribution to
the fund which is greater than the others, and this would compensate
for the damaging rivalries that the Lottery and its good causes
are currently at risk of suffering.
From the outset we have shown how charities
and voluntary organisations pour more money into, say, animals,
than into youth, sport, arts and education together. Were the
whole lottery structure to be seen as the compensation for this
decades-long oversight, public sympathies and energies would coalesce
in one direction. Already, as Margaret Talbot points out,[11]
"sport and recreation accounts for 26% of all actual volunteering,
more than the Church, health, education, youth and social services."
But that is not mirrored in the funding. So the funds which match
this energy must be linked to it through the Lottery and the awareness
it alone can promote regularly.
B. LICENSING
AND REGULATION
A constructive survey of the best ways to create
more resources for good causes requires an analysis of:
(i) How the Lottery has been used to justify
a growth of the world of gambling;
(ii) The number of people and organisations
involved in licensing and regulation; and
(iii) The parasitic nature of many of these
organisations, all of which are funded in the end from the takings
of the Lottery.
The perspective of the common man versus big business
The only hope which David ever had against Goliath
was accuracy of aim.
(i) How the Lottery has been used to justify
a growth of the world of gambling.
(a) Distinction of the Lottery from heavy
gambling
Denis Vaughan's initial plea (18 December, 1991),
in the EEC hearings on gambling in the single market,[12]
for a National Lottery in the UK stressed that in a Lottery "with
a chance of only one in a million of gaining a large prize. .
.there can be no gambling skill involved in such a slight chance.
. .A lottery is more accurately seen as an entertainment available
to the whole populace, clearly without harmful effects in the
rest of Europe."
Very few States in the USA allow gambling of
the Las Vegas style or extent, although they all have lotteries:
"In January 1991 the current annual
turnover of gambling in the UK was published as £13.4 billion
(£4.5 billion more than the £9 billion cited in the
Coopers and Lybrand report). . .Is gambling in the UK the largest
in Europe because it is stimulated by the State, given this virtual
absence of taxes in some cases?. . . they range from none on horse
racing, through 2.8% on £5.3 billion, shared between gaming
machines and casinos, to 8% on the £6.5 billion of off course
betting and bingo . . .A major risk of damage to individual' lives
is exemplified in the figure of 8% of British children between
the ages of 11 and 15 spending up to £60 a week on gaming
machines. A national lottery should in no way be confused with
this or the heavier gambling of casinos or betting."
(b) Labour support for profit-making
In December 1993, at a seminar[13]
which the Lottery Promotion Company gave at the Institute of Directors
for all prospective bidders to operate the lottery, Lord Donoughue,
who was the Labour spokesman who handled the Lottery Bill as it
went through the Lords, but "expected almost from the
start that it would have billions of turnover and relatively large
profits". Lord Donoughue insisted: "I think that
the advertising should, in some way, advocate the pure, social
good of the Arts and the Sports. . .It should explicitly pronounce
the commitment to improve to quote `the quality of life in our
society."
His acceptance of profit-making surprised our
Company greatly, as the international lottery experts we had brought
to the UK[14]
could see no need for profit-making in a monopoly, where there
is no competition. Surely the only incentive needed is a performance-related
bonus to one person, the director, as is the case in most lotteries
in the world. Shareholders are not necessary. Set-up loans from
banks or the State, usually repaid within 12 months from the start
of the Lottery, are more appropriate.
In hindsight this Labour support of profit-making
could be seen as the thin end of a very large wedge in favour
of gambling, which the remit for Sir Alan Budd has developed.
(c) Lottery improvements omitted from the
Budd Report
Page 4 of the 2003 National Lottery Licensing
and Regulation Decision Document mentions that "The Gambling
Review Body were not asked to consider changes to the National
Lottery, but to consider the impact of their recommendations on
it."
In our comments on the Budd report to the DCMS
(5 Nov 2001) submitted at the request of Treasury, we commented:
"The Budd Review Report . . . omits
to study why the National Lottery was introduced, and why it has
not achieved a major improvement in daily living standards for
the whole populace. (The Report) tends to favour profit-making
organisations. . .and introduces some important overall information
about gambling. Figure 5, viii (P 21) shows the vast growth in
gambling to an annual turnover of £42 billion. . .given by
the Home Office as £10 billion in August 1990 and suddenly
rose to £13.4 billion in January 1991."[15]
The Report[16]
comments that most gambling has remained stable in the United
Kingdom for many years—only the calculation and measurement
of its extent has changed. In fact, due to the terms of reference
given by the DCMS, the Budd report achieves a huge sleight of
hand without blinking. Joining the Lottery with heavy gambling
to justify its expansion, and then separating it for the purposes
of regulation is illogical, if not dishonest.
It calculates the number of people who play
the Lottery as gamblers, and proceeds to affirm that the world
of gambling has increased vastly by this amount. It then takes
the profit-making aspect of the Lottery to justify advertising[17]
for all other sorts of gambling to the same extent.
This is the place to suggest the reverse—that
all growth facilitations for gambling of any sort should be considered
only in respect to the extent to which they contribute to the
same focussed NLDF good causes. The corollary is that the organisation
responsible for controlling the funds which go to these universal
good causes should be placed over the new Gambling Board, as any
facilitations to other forms of gambling should be dependent on
their contribution to this sorely needed social improvement.
(d) Lottery's special position in the gambling
market
This phrase in Tessa Jowell's Foreword is misleading
and should be challenged by careful analysis. It invites this
new look at the priorities. If the Lottery, as we asserted in
Brussels in 1991, is an entertainment for good causes, like a
large-scale raffle, then it is not in the market place on the
same plane as racing, gaming machines, casinos or even bingo.
Gambling has been given to the DCMS, which we
take to be a Treasury decision. The key to the failure of the
Lottery so far to have any wide-reaching effect on the grass roots
quality of life in the UK may well be due to Treasury attitudes,
in disconnecting what it takes from sport and culture with what
it invests in them. It could be looking on quality of life purely
in market terms.
Central Government's annual income from sport
is £5 billion,[18]
but the same source lists its expenditure on sport as £1
billion. The DCMS Game Plan (Summary, Page 2) asserts that the
total State funding to sport is £2 billion per annum, but
we can find little justification above approximately £1.4
billion when all complicated promises of Lottery and DfES funding
are reduced to actual funds paid within one year.
The government funding to sport in England from
1972 to 2003 fluctuates from £3.6 million in the first year,
to £35 million in the last year.[19]
The amount to sport paid directly through the
DCMS was only £67 million. in 2001-02, £115 million
in 2002-03 and £111 million planned for 2003-04. This amount
ought to include all matters such as the London Olympic bid.
The stark contrast between the £58 billion
paid to the DfES annually compared to the total of £1.4 billion
to the DCMS shows that there is no expectation that the latter
will provide arts and sports participation at the grass roots
level. And yet physical and emotional education are just as important
to a fulfilled young person as their mental and skills education
supplied by the DfES. No-one seems to see that the earning capacity
of a vigorous, happy and energetic person is greater.
The vast sport/arts participation programmes
needed to provide effective reduction of obesity, crime, drugs,
alcohol misuse, absenteeism and emotional immaturity must touch
every young person in the country, not token examples in particular
trouble spots.
If the Lottery's image is simplified and focussed
to lead and shape this huge regeneration of the country's energies,
incidentally improving health and reducing the risks of violence
and aggression for all, then the urgent need for the entire world
of gambling, now set within the DCMS, to contribute on a large-scale
programme becomes clear.
All talk of profit-making or an increased gambling
market should be subservient to the common good. The "common
man" does not know how to lobby for this, nor has he the
funds to achieve it. Although the Prime Minister wants fitness
to become a national trait, this will never happen unless Treasury
priorities are finally redesigned, and effective legislation set
up to enable the overall programme we outline to start and grow
undisturbed.
(ii) Minimum personnel needed to license and
regulate the National Lottery
"Is the Lottery Commission the right
body to regulate the National Lottery?"
All aspects of the Lottery require regulation
by a body which understands the importance of selling a wholly
credible product. The mooted growth of all avenues of gambling
confuses the public with a multiplicity of well-advertised offers.
Typifying the Lottery as gambling instead of a harmless form of
entertainment helps dissuade others from seeing the Lottery as
different, because of the way its good causes affect the life
of the player.
In the Decision Document, the cry for all manner
of competition within the operator's field is totally unnecessary
to achieve the "exciting new ideas" for which Tessa
Jowell calls. On page 10 (para 4.2) the Document calls for "more
flexibility to bring different companies into the Lottery to maintain
its freshness and the breadth of its appeal."
In practical terms this is quite unnecessary
and in fact counter-productive. If an integrated business (as
approved on page 8) is run by a first-rate director, as are most
lotteries in the world, the freshness in the games can all be
organised by the one director. Dazzling the public with a variety
of new games should not need a variety of new licences, when one
experienced director can ring the changes with the necessary frequency
to stimulate interest. There is a wealth of information about
new games, techniques, internet, etc. and on how successful they
are. For the public the freshness comes in particular with a clever
promotion of a co-ordinated variety of sports and arts activities
which are being funded, stimulated and fostered.
There has been little or no overall financial
regulation of the distribution of the NLDF beyond that which our
Charity's sister company has provided cost-free for years. Often
our reports have been denied, although they are always based on
material supplied by the DCMS.
Since March 1997 the reserve in the NLDF remained
at £3.6 billion for almost six years.[20]
No regulator, nor even the National Audit Office (NAO) or Public
Accounts Committee (PAC) thought fit to change that, and apply
the general rule that funds not used within a year should be applied
to other areas. Only recently has the DCMS managed to gain more
efficient handling of the reserve.
The Lottery Commission should cover this area.
But it should also realise that its actions must inspire respect.
The creation of negative headlines does not sell lottery tickets,
only newspapers, who thrive on them. When the Committee's lack
of wisdom on this caused Camelot to sue, the sustained negative
publicity must have discouraged many players and caused sales
losses.
The matters to be decided by the Commission
should be reduced to a minimum, and any decisions must be of a
nature which increases the public's love and respect of the Lottery.
Financially all competition for running various
aspects of the Lottery increases overheads but not necessarily
takings. As was obvious, Camelot won most of the earlier sub-licences,
showing the process to be superfluous. The State taking over the
current Camelot personnel (as our UK Lottery Company considered
doing) at the end of the current contract, and the setting up
of a simple, efficient small group to choose new games of all
types should be entrusted to an experienced operator. Rather than
answer the other questions about licensing and regulation, we
would like to offer the most authoritative advice available in
the world.
CONCLUSION
The solution to how to run the Lottery with
the minimum of personnel and committees, but with adequate regulation,
would best be found by inviting Ireland's experienced national
lottery director, Ray Bates, to outline the simplest way of re-organising
all aspects of the National Lottery for licensing, regulation
and image. For almost a decade he and Guy Simonis were regarded
as the best authorities internationally. That does not mean inviting
Mr Bates to submit a report which will then be rejected, due to
unidentified lobbying, or opinions less expert than his.
We must honestly trust the man who was the head
of A.I.L.E. for many years, and thus has a deep and thorough knowledge
of most other lotteries[21].
Moreover he has coped with the monthly challenge of countering
Camelot's competition at his borders. He knows more than others,
and can reduce the expensive and wasteful confusion which British
bureaucracy and powerful lobbying have caused. It is axiomatic
that bureaucrats create jobs for more bureaucrats, yet decline
responsibility for mistakes, by erecting an "arm's length"
chain, so that nobody is exposed to blame in the end.
After he has presented the efficient reshaping,
Ray Bates could also be invited to select the best young director
to run the new operating company. That would leave adequate time
for him to be fully up to speed before taking over, with more
than Camelot's knowledge of the idiosyncracies of each part of
the country, the regional press, and the challenges offered from
the "gambling market".
C. DISTRIBUTION
AND FUNDING
1. Treasury's structure, priorities and thought
processes
In our experience, there are Treasury officials
who deplore the Lottery, because it risks reducing their work
and area of power, by hypothecating funds for certain purposes.
Tessa Jowell reproved some sporting groups for expecting funding
because they had received it before. The Treasury, she said, needed
to be re-convinced, year after year, of the necessity of any funding.
Since long before the Lottery started, nobody
in Treasury has acted as though the productive use of leisure
time were essential to the well-being of the UK. The above-quoted
annual payments to sport in the UK are risible compared to the
size of the population, and the state income from sport. The huge
disparity between funding to the DfES (mental and skills education)
and the DCMS (physical, emotional and spiritual education) illustrates
this lack of recognition of the needs for a well-balanced life.
It is also illustrated by the percentage of GDP spent in the UK
on culture and sport, compared to Germany, France, Denmark, Finland
and many other countries listed by UNESCO and the EEC.[22]
Yet the representatives of Treasury who consulted
us on the subject of "the cultural void" are not to
be found anywhere in the PMS Parliamentary Companion.
In the forgoing analysis of responsibility,
we did not mention the particular case quoted in the Evening
Standard, (15 May, 2001—Who comes after Young?) ".
. .but a succession of wet or ignorant ministers in nominal charge
at Culture has ensured that (Robin) Young, like his predecessor
Sir Hayden Phillips, has done most of the real decision making."
That means the Dome, Wembley, the proportions to arts and
sports participation, the withheld funds. No correction to that
claim was published.
Yet each year the "ignorant" ministers
are expected to fight the Treasury to increase the size of the
grant to the Department. The result is the constant return to
the "status quo" picture which even the Prime Minister
has complained is impossible to budge.
Despite the many encouraging promises made,
there will be no major funding changes, particularly in the absence
of powerful lobbyists (as the world of gambling can afford) to
trace through the supply line within the Treasury.
We campaigned from 1987 to bring in the Lottery
to change the quality of life for all, in particular as the most
positive form of crime prevention available. The DCMS (then DNH)
replied (Andrew Ramsay, 6 January 1994):
"Responsibility for policy in crime prevention
matters rests with the Home Office. As you have commented on many
previous occasions, the provision of improved facilities and opportunities
may very well turn individuals away from crime towards more socially
acceptable and personally beneficial activities. The Government
would be delighted if this was the case, but it is not a direct
policy objective for the Lottery."
In late 2003 we invited the NAO to consider
some calculations of the savings to the State, if a full-scale
intergovernmental plan were set out, reducing obesity, ill-health,
drugs, alcohol misuse, violence and absenteeism by the organised
encouragement, in the most attractive ways possible, of the practice
of arts/sports daily participation.
Despite the clear demonstration of our huge
alcohol misuse costs (£55 million a day), obesity (£2.5
billion. a year) and drugs (£6 billion a year)[23]
plus the unchanging pattern of British yobbish ("uncultured")
behaviour in any holiday resort in Europe, these arguments, even
if presented by Gordon Brown himself, risk being rejected on purely
economic grounds within the Treasury.
So the Prime Minister's pleas for fitness for
all and this revision of the Lottery distribution provide the
ideal catalyst for a reversal of this long-standing structural
block.
If the DCMS and the Lottery together decide
to accept the responsibility of touching all the 10 million young
people between seven and 21, then the scale of funds must be radically
changed to provide for the 10 million people, not just for token
groups.
The value of the Lottery adopting this clear
focus of being for something, instead of a passive machine
to process endless applications is inestimable. Its image, and
consequently its saleability, can be transformed. Ten long years
have been given over to single projects, large and small, and
the time has now come for the "bold gestures" asked
for by Sir Robin Day and the Rothschild Royal Commission on Gambling,
and excluded or ignored by whoever drew up the terms of reference
for the Budd Report.
The regular publicity and stimulation which
the Lottery can give to these nationwide purposes can transform
attitudes far simpler and quicker than formal governmental plans
which tend, in any case, to be restrictive rather than inspiring.
2. Olympic Bid
Any self-respecting country would fund its Olympic
Bid out of State funds. For the Lottery to fund this instead of
the State is not wise. Headlines about the Bid cannot stimulate
sales to the same extent that similar sums spent on personal sports
participation for all young people can do. In the end the sportsmen
who play in the Olympics will survive on sponsorship and the bulk
of the Lottery funds will pass through the hands of property developers.
As we have some excellent role models to inspire
the Olympic Bid, a certain stimulation to Lottery sales should
be forthcoming. But the refusal to recognise the right of every
young person to participate in sport training and coaching is
an evasion of responsibility, for which the Treasury is ultimately
responsible.
3. "Does the National Lottery have the
right focus?"
The overall picture we have painted at the outset
shows a categorical "No" to this question.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, CAARE believe that there
must be radical reform of both the National Lottery and the responsibilities
of the DCMS.
If these are focused on the most constructive
use of leisure time possible for all young people, which requires
a fundamental change in Treasury, a number of the expensive ills
which beset the UK would be reduced and eventually eliminated.
1 Current Treasury heads for Public Services are:
| Managing Director
| Nick Macpherson
|
| Directors |
Joe Grice, Jonathan Stevens, Anita Charlesworth, Ray Shostak
|
| Education, Training & Culture
| Stephen Meek
|
| |
Back
2
The Best Lottery in the World? (The Lottery Promotion Company
Limited, 1993) Page 24. Back
3
See also the Times, letters: 16 October 2001. "There
are some 10 million young people in Great Britain between the
ages of seven and 21. Private schools and clubs apart, we have
minimal provision of facilities and coaching to enable them to
participate in sport and physical education. The State spends
one eighth of what Germany and France each spend annually on cultural
activities (including sport) and, of that, only a tiny proportion
goes to sport (one seventeenth). Something urgently needs to be
done to persuade our politicians to remedy matters.
The Council for the Advancement of Arts, Recreation and Education
(CAARE), a charity whose aims we wholeheartedly support, advocates
an immediate and independent lottery endowment of at least £3
billion to promote sport at the grass roots and to provide a permanent
network of training and coaching closely integrated with schools.
CAARE's founder, Denis Vaughan, one of the keenest advocates of
the introduction of a National Lottery, is appalled that funds
generated by it have been hoarded over the last four years, with
approximately £3.5 billion still to be paid out. In addition
CAARE is lobbying strenuously for the Government to spend much
more on sport and cultural activities to achieve something nearer
the expenditure of France and Germany.
All this would mean a fitter, healthier and, we think, happier
population, with fewer young people given little choice other
than to idle on the streets or in front of computer games. It
might also mean that the lottery would gain in popularity were
its purpose clearly seen to be a major contributor to such funds".
(Signed) Steve Backley, Roger Black, Dwain Chambers, Linford
Christie, Sharron Davies, John Parrott, Paula Radcliffe, Tessa
Sanderson, David Seaman.
The Times, 23 October 2001. "I am writing to express
my strong support for the sentiments expressed by my fellow British
sportsmen in these columns. (Letter 16 Oct). There is no doubt
in my mind that the greatest sporting legacy that the lottery
can give this country is the opportunity for every young person,
regardless of which school they attend, to develop an active and
healthy lifestyle.
The Government is finally realising the broader societal benefit
of fostering a sporting ethos within this country, but the time
for words is well past as too many of our young people have been
let down by the current status quo." (Signed) Jonathan
Edwards.
The Times, 23 October 2001.
"We support our sporting colleagues on the need for a
great deal more government and lottery funds to be allocated to
grassroots sport for the benefit of young people, so that we can
at least match the rest of Europe.
Perhaps the Council for the Advancement of Arts, Recreation and
Education, whose aims our colleagues support in their letter,
could be asked to advise on the endowment and expansion of opportunities
for young people to participate in sport that greater funding
would provide.
Until government takes the lives of our young people seriously,
there can be no chance of Britain entering into the spirit of
a sporting nation. The expense required is nothing in comparison
to the returns, both social and economic.
By recognising and acting on this, Tony Blair and his Government
could achieve, in one simple gesture, a transformation of the
tenor of life in Britain." (Signed) James Cracknell (GB pair),
Jonno Devlin (GB eight), Rick Dunn (GB coxless four), Toby Garbett
(GN coxless four), Joseph von Maltzahn (GB eight), Steve Williams
(GB coxless four). Back
4
To Tessa Jowell, Estelle Morris, Richard Caborn and Alan Davey.
10 September 2003. Crime Prevention. Joined-up Thinking. "I
am delighted that your enquiries have caused the NAO to examine
the balance management of the NLDF. As we announced in the House
Magazine, we are approaching several parliamentary committees,
to try to achieve a co-ordinated attack on the patently insoluble
crime situation in the UK, for which I lobbied so hard to bring
in the National Lottery.
Enclosed is the case that we have presented to the committees,
and some background to the formation of the DNH/DCMS and the Dome
which may be new to you. To tackle our proposed positive solutions
to crime, increased state funds as well as lottery funds will
be necessary. Matthew Taylor's presence at the Downing Street
Policy Unit may help advance this approach.
Can the DCMS obtain a figure, equal to the expenditure of breweries
on promoting the use of alcohol, to urge subtly the active and
healthy lifestyle which Jonathan Edwards, many other sportsmen
and our policies have advanced for years? But surely the amount
and division of funds within the DCMS also needs serious examination.
Should it not be tripled at least?
Currently only 8% of the children and youths eligible for musical
teaching have access to instruments of any kind. So the Department
is less than marginal in its effect on the general public. Moreover,
as was mentioned in my initial Adam Smith Institute case for an
Arts Lottery, the debasing education which is circulated daily
by the tabloids merits a counter attack. Deirdre's casebook in
the Sun teaches millions of people to explore three in a bed,
wife swapping, regular betrayal of many kinds and inverted sex
patterns. That demonstrates the market forces unchecked, which
tend towards the lowest common denominator, which is usually below
the belt.
Virtually nowhere in Murdoch's or Desmond's papers can I find
any encouragement of developing the subtle aspects of human behaviour,
or the way to regular achievement of bliss, inner joy and spiritual
uplift. How can this be shaped? Not through an undiluted diet
of heavy metal, and I doubt that it crosses Alistair Campbell's
mind often.
Could we meet in the near future to look at a shape for a major
growth of the civilising effect of the DCMS on daily life at the
grass roots level, and leave to one side for a few years the more
elitist patterns instigated by Sir Hayden? The masses are paying,
but not benefitting." Back
5
Satprem. The Mind of the Cells. Institute for Evolutionary Research
(NY 1982) ISBN 0-938710-06-0. Shaun de Warren You are the Key
Wellspring Publications (GB 1988) ISBN 0 95135200 0 8. Shaun
de Warren The Mirror of Life. Your Adventure of Self-Discovery.
Wellspring Publications (GB 1991) ISBN 0-9513620 5 9. Back
6
Daily Mail, 27 December 2003. Page 39 £5 million
price of putting youngsters in touch with their emotions. Back
7
Denis Vaughan. Zweitausendeins, 1992 Schlag auf Schlag. English
version (unedited) The Effect of Music on Body and Soul (- How
to Stay Young with Rock-How to Kick the Need for Drugs).
Denis Vaughan. Abstract from 1993 National Meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science. Non-verbal ways of
transmitting subtle emotions to an orchestra are described, and
the most effective way of maintaining the composer's pulse character
throughout the work. Back
8
"The Operation of the National Lottery" Memorandum
for the CMS Committee, October 2000. Paragraph 4, The role of
the Lottery Commission: "In March 1998 we read, (and copied
to HM Treasury and the DCMS) a report about the New York Lottery,
established in 1967. It doubled its sales in five years, 1992
to 1997, by reshaping its image. Sales of $2 billion became $4
billion at an annual growth of 14%. This stopped all the stories
about the public tiring, the need for novelty and other excuses
for falling sales.
(i) New York: made changes to refocus its raison d'être:
raising funds for the public good. "I'm very proud of having
almost $4 billion in sales, but I'm more proud of the fact that
we have been able to make this a more responsible lottery"
said the Lottery director, Jeff Perlee. He warned that lotteries
which concentrate on the bottom line to the exclusion of the main
goal-raising money for the benefit of others-risk a backlash by
the general public.
"If we lose sight of our responsibilities, we'll find ourselves
getting slapped real hard by the press and the public, like those
lotteries that start thinking they were businesses and forgot
they answer to a higher boss, which is public opinion." Perlee
still sees the on-line system as a very efficient way to deliver
the goods. "The one thing I don't think anyone can argue
about is that when the image of the lottery is of a good corporate
citizen and good community participant, everybody feels a little
bit better when they buy a ticket."
(ii) Georgia: "Targeted contributions are good for all involved.
. .a plan that has made the Georgia lottery one of the most successful
in North America."
(iii) Minnesota: "Specific designated beneficiaries for lottery
proceeds are very beneficial both to the image and the sales of
the lottery. . .A significant minority of players plays without
a real expectation of winning, and yet with the knowledge that
their money nevertheless goes to a good cause."
(iv) Maryland: "There are also fence-sitters, for whom the
support of a good cause might be enough to turn them into lottery
players. Even more important are the non-lottery players-if they
feel good about the revenues a lottery generates, they and their
elected representatives will support the lottery."
(v) Western Australia: "Awareness of community benefits is
not the primary reason our players choose to play, but it is important
in rationalising a loss, and is a reason why they continue to
play." Back
9
The Times. 4 November 1994. "As one who for many
years was a solitary advocate of a national lottery, may I express
the hope that the government will streamline and simplify the
system for deciding which good causes are good enough to be given
lottery money.
On 25 November 1967, the Times published a letter from me suggesting
a National Lottery to raise funds for the (then unbuilt) National
Theatre. A lottery, I argued, could also raise massive funds for
a variety of other cultural and social projects. The idea was
to bridge the gap between public funds and private philanthropy
in those areas of national life where more expenditure was desirable.
In 1978 these arguments were accepted by Lord Rothschild's Royal
Commission on Gambling. Rothschild recommended "a single
National Lottery for good causes". In the 1970's and 1980's
I repeatedly lobbied Cabinet ministers of both parties. Nothing
happened until 1992, when the present Prime Minister and the then
Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, to their great credit, boldly broke
free from the long-standing, hidebound prejudice against a lottery.
Now, at last, the National Lottery is about to begin. The potential
benefits are tremendous. The nation's gambling urge will be harnessed
for widespread social benefit. The prize-winning draws will give
huge mass entertainment.
But what a fiasco there will be if the system for distributing
funds to deserving causes is cumbersome and bureaucratic, with
too many committees and quangos. And as to the Millennium Fund,
whatever that is for, the millennium commissioners should hurry
up because the year 2000 will be here sooner than they think.
The lottery was created to help good causes, to enrich the quality
of life. This must be done with boldness, imagination and speed.
Otherwise a great and popular enterprise could go off at half-cock.
(Signed) (Sir) Robin Day. Back
10
First set out in The Fifth Year (Lottery Promotion Company
Limited, November 1998) by Richard McGowan, and presented to the
DCMS permanent secretary, Robin Young, by CAARE's board member,
Sir Michael Bett, Head of the Civil Service Commissioners, and
co-author of the idea. Back
11
House Magazine, Margaret Talbot, CCPR. "Serious about Sport?"
23 June 2003. Back
12
Full text available as Appendix E of The Lottery Promotion Company
response to the White Paper, A National Lottery Raising Money
for Good Causes, May 1992. Back
13
Lottery Promotion Company, December 1993. Launching the National
Lottery. Practical Hurdles to Overcome. Speakers: Guy Simonis
(President Elect Intertoto), Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, MP, Lord Donoughue,
Denis Vaughan. Chaired by Lord Birkett. Back
14
Guy Simonis, Reidar Nordby, Ray Bates, Richard Frigren. Back
15
"In 1998 gambling turnover saw £18.5 billion wagered
in casinos with a yield (the amount wagered minus the winnings
paid out) of £478.5 million. £8.4 billion turnover on
betting yielded £1,856 million. £6.3 billion wagered
on gaming machines yielded £1,306 million. Only £5.4
billion was wagered on the National Lottery, (prize fund based
on 45% of on-line ticket sales) yielding £2.687.9 million.
£1.955.8 million went to the good causes, £698 (13%
to tax (including Camelot's corporate tax and VAT), and the rest
went to Camelot's expenses, and profits. Bingo's turnover has
grown to £2.4 billion, yielding £678.1 millio. If the
government wishes to improve the quality of life, then it should
consider the level of duty and taxes on all other forms of gambling,
which are otherwise functioning mainly for profit, so that the
lottery, which has to pay 12% (13%) taxes and 28% to good causes
is not penalised.
It stands to reason that, with yields on betting as high as £1,856
million, handsome funds can be found for high-level lobbying,
and expert presentation of the case for reducing taxes on gambling.
Sport, to take one example, has never had sums of this nature
to fund a detailed lobbying campaign." Back
16
Budd gambling review report 2001.
13.1 Our terms of reference require us to concentrate on gambling;
they do not require us to consider the health or prosperity of
the activities on which gambling may be based. The Rothschild
Commission (1978) was particularly required to consider-The contribution
made from the proceeds of gambling towards support of other activities
(including sport), the means by which this might be enhanced,
and the conditions imposed.
14.7 80% of people surveyed thought that doing the National Lottery
was gambling. 73% had bought a lottery ticket or scratch card
in the last year.
14.20 We have noted that in Australia radical change to gambling
legislation resulted in a rapid proliferation of gambling opportunities.
The Australian Productivity Commission reviewed its effects. Among
the surveys it commissioned was a national survey on community
attitudes to gambling, which found widespread concern about the
expansion of gambling. Around 70% of respondents (including a
majority of regular gamblers) considered that gambling does more
harm than good. At 2.3%, the rate of problem gambling in Australia
is the highest noted in the international comparisons given in
the British Gambling Prevalence Survey. We think that the Australia
experience offers reinforcement for a cautious approach.
17.62 Although some submissions claim that it is possible to increase
the availability of gambling without increasing problem gambling,
the weight of the evidence is the other way. Back
17
Daily Telegraph, 21 January 2003. "Denis Vaughan's
distinction (letter Jan.18) between "harmless" and "addictive"
gambling is far less important in causing excess than its commercial
promotion. Gambling is a form of entertainment and not, in the
long run, a way of making money for the punter. The danger, therefore,
occurs when it results in chasing losses. The best way of reducing
this is to provide gambling on the basis of unstimulated demand.
This was the situation in Britain at the time of the EEC hearings
in December 1991, to which Mr Vaughan refers. I also contributed
to these hearings. At that time there was more gambling in Britain
than other European countries. However, in view of gambling public
policy, there were fewer casualties in Britain. The National Lottery
caused the abandonment of this approach.
Subsequent deregulation and the Budd review have been largely
concerned with the economics of gambling. There was little true
appreciation of the psycho-social factors involved in excess.
Mr. Vaughan advocates allocating a portion of all gambling stakes
to "good causes". This is unlikely to be acceptable
to commercial interests unless it can be exploited by allowing
even more vigorous promotion of gambling."
(signed) Dr E Moran, Chairman, the National Council on Gambling. Back
18
Leisure Industries Research Centre, 25 November 2003. Total income
£4,997.41 million and Total Expenditure £966.01 million. Back
19
Sport England annual reports: 1972-£3.6 million. 1973-£5.0
million. 1974-£6.57 million. 1975-£6.33 million. 1976-£8.3
million. 1977-£10.2 million. 1978-£11.5 million. 1979-£15.2
million. 1980-£15.5 million. 1981- £19.2 million. 1982-£20.9
million. 1983-£28 million. 1984-£27.1 million. 1985-£28.6
million. 1986-£30.1 million. 1987-£37.3 million. 1988-£37.1
million. 1989-£38.4 million. 1990-£41.8 million. 1991-£44.7
million. 1992-£46 million. 1993-£47.6 million. 1994-£50.6
million. 1995-£49.8 million. 1996-£49.8 million. 1997-£47.4
million. 1998-£32.9 million. 1999-£31.6 million. 2000-£33
million. 2001-£37.4 million. 2002-£42.7 million. 2003-£35
million. Back
20
At 30 November 2003, the Overall Total in the NLDF was still
£2,875,472,193.19. Back
21
In the 1993 Intertoto congress, Ray Bates and Guy Simonis were
the chief speakers. Bates is quoted as concluding: "It
is clear that the North American philosophy is to `load the jackpot'
and the European view is to take a far more moderate approach."
And echoing Guy Simonis' earlier warning: "The notorious
$100 million jackpots which, in some cases, represent 25 times
the base jackpot, must be high on the list of suspects for the
murder of the lotto game in the U.S." Bates states that
paradoxically, "extremely large jackpots could be damaging
to the lotto game in North America while relatively small jackpots
could be inhibiting the growth of lotto games in Europe."
He noted that each time a jackpot is of a certain size, sales
decline. "The absolute size of a jackpot is not of primary
importance. Even a relatively small jackpot attracts attention
if it can be presented to the players and the media as the `Biggest
Jackpot Ever'."
His conclusion: "Develop a game at a slow and steady
pace with frequent record jackpots, each one not significantly
higher than the previous one." And: "We should not be
afraid to change the lotto formula as the situation demands it.
The $100 million plus cul-de-sac in which some lotteries are now
caught should be a lesson for all of us and might cause the disinterested
outsider to ask "Why didn't somebody shout stop?'" (Intertoto
Newsletter, Issue No 22, December 1993, Page 10.). Back
22
The budget of the DCMS, expressed as a proportion of the State
Expenditure has fallen by almost a third since the start of the
National Lottery and shows no sign of returning to its earlier
levels.
| Year
| Budget for the DCMS
| As a % of
| As a % of State
|
| In billions
| GDP
| Expenditure
|
| 1993/94
| £1
| 0.16%
| 0.42%
|
| 1997/98
| £1
| 0.13%
| 0.34%
|
| 1998/99
| £1
| 0.10%
| 0.26%
|
| 1999/00
| £1
| 0.11%
| 0,29%
|
| 2000/01
| £1
| 0.105%
| 0.28%
|
| 2001/02
| £1.1
| 0.11%
| 0.29%
|
| 2002/03
| £1.2
| 0.105%
| 0.28%
|
| 2003/04
| £1.4
| 0.11%
| 0.29%
|
When seen in comparison with the spending
of our European and Commonwealth neighbours our culture allocation
is paltry. It is the key to the British reputation as the barbarians
of Europe, helping to increase crime, violence, drunkenness and
drugs.
| % of State Expenditure spent on culture
|
| France |
2.40%
|
| Germany |
2.40%
|
| Switzerland
| 2.20%
|
| Italy |
1.75%
|
| Australia |
1.60%
|
| Canada |
1.50%
|
These figures are based on research
by Lea Paterson of the Times using the Treasury's own figures,
given specially to CAARE, and on international figures published
by UNESCO on their website, but not updated for some years.
A request to ESTAT for updated figures received the following
reply (6 January 2004)
"Unfortunately we do not have any data on the funding of
cultural activities at the moment, as we are actually at the stage
of finalising the concepts and definitions in a Task Force and
of collecting first data on cultural expenditure through a pilot
survey. We expect some first results for February 2004, but as
the scope of methodological problems is not clearly identified
by now, it is not clear whether data will be comparable. I would
invite you to re-contact me in April 2004 and I may then be able
to provide you with additional information". (Signed)
Pascal Schmidt. Back
23
The Times, 22 September 2001. Britain's £6 billion
a year drug habit. Heroin and crack cocaine addicts who commit
crimes to pay for their drugs could each be stealing an average
of £15,000 a year, and some are committing up to 800 offences.
The figures are based on Home Office research papers released
yesterday which estimate that £2.3 billion is being spent
on heroin by up to 295,000 users. They also show that overall,
drug users in Britain are spending more than £6.6 billion
a year on illegal drugs ranging from heroin to cannabis and Ecstasy.
Of that £1.8 billion is being paid out for cocaine and £353
million for crack cocaine by 290,000 users. Cannabis is used by
more than three million people who spend £1.5 billion a year.
Another 126,000 users spent £214 million on amphetamines.
Estimates of the size of the drugs market were extrapolated from
the results of urine tests among those arrested for drug-related
crimes and the 1998 British Crime Survey, in which people were
asked about their drug-taking. Estimates were also based on the
results of mandatory drug tests in prisons. Back
|
