Regulator and partner

back to the contents page

Harriet Spicer, chair of the National Lottery Commission, the Lottery watchdog, looks forward to an evolving role for her organisation

Make sure you receive your fair share of lottery cash - take out a no-obligation trial subscription today.

In recent weeks the Lottery has once again been in the spotlight. Camelot began their relaunch and the press have been assessing the impact of their activity. DCMS published its consultation document on The Review of Lottery Licensing and Regulation. The Culture Media and Sport Select Committee took evidence on the Government’s proposals arising from the gambling review report and the Lottery Monitor conference was a further occasion on which the key challenges facing this important national institution were addressed. To my mind, an important central theme has emerged in all of this: potential. Nothing is being taken for granted. Every opportunity for growth, for new excitement, for restructuring is categorically on the agenda. Though one of several events, Lottery Monitor’s annual conference was particularly important in identifying the possibilities for new developments and new energy within the relationships contributing to the success of the National Lottery. When Camelot’s chief executive Dianne Thompson made one of the keynote speeches, the two ends of the Lottery chain – the operator and distributors – were brought firmly together. We were told of trends in the international lottery world, and the new approach Camelot are adopting to the marketing of the lottery – with a call for cooperation and partnership in making the most of the promotional value of the money created for good causes. While sadly, the Secretary of State was not able to announce her plans in full, Richard Caborn, her deputy, gave an indication of the review in prospect for the distribution bodies. The distributors shared their work, discussed their common purposes and their diversity. While I can show an enthusiastic appreciation of what is in prospect for others within the Lottery partnership, that leaves the question of where the regulator sits in all this. I am clear that there is an equal obligation on us, and as substantial an opportunity for us to develop our work as there is for anyone. We can evolve in ways that are both proactive and responsive.

The fact that we can and should do so arises directly from the potential conferred by our three interlinked duties. Certainly Camelot has a regulator whose work touches every part of their business. And it would seem that they are unique in having their very own sole-purpose regulator. However, I would not be nearly so confident that this was a plus rather than a minus, were it not for the fact that we are a regulator charged not only with care for propriety and player protection, but also, once those issues are addressed, with a duty to maximise funds for good causes. As was recognised in the recent government consultation document: ‘a

‘I am certain that the regulation which has been in place from the start of the Lottery has been integral to the delivery of the very success Dianne quantified in her speech.’

regulator might approach the task (of regulation) quite differently depending on what its statutory duties are in respect of maximising income’. I am certain that the regulation which has been in place from the start of the Lottery has been integral to the delivery of the very success Dianne quantified in her speech. It has contributed, by the confidence in the Lottery it engendered, to the brand health that was identified as being essential to future growth.

The duty to evolve comes from the spur provided by the interaction of our three statutory duties. Our recently redrafted mission statement now includes the words that ‘we wish to motivate the operator’, and those are not intended to be empty words. But the way in which we do this should take account of the specific stage at which the Lottery has arrived. We are regulating an operator with eight years’ experience behind them. We can create a

flexibility in the way we work that takes account of this. The key continuing function laid down in our Management Statement – to license games – would have been exercised in a different way if we had been regulating a new operator. As things are, there is definitely the potential to extend existing initiatives: our policy of setting framework objectives and imperatives; the review of our methods of licensing games, particularly where those games do not raise key issues of principle. A possible generic license for standard instants games, the clarification and simplification of player information and its presentation are developments that display the constructive regulatory style we have adopted. Enhanced performance and information under this new dispensation can build the confidence necessary for us to give greater freedom, and give other stakeholders confidence that Camelot uses these freedoms to good effect. At the same time I hope that the value of the admittedly high level of oversight required of us is used by making it part of an overall drive for excellence – a valuable part of best business practice for a company in Camelot’s market position. There will be times when a public body and a commercial enterprise will take different views on risk, but I would expect our judgements to keep to the proper boundaries of propriety and player protection, and in matters that we saw to be purely commercial, would not want to supplant the judgement of the operator.

I hope that all those considering their reaction to Camelot’s proposals for closer working with the distributors could take comfort from the fact that they would be making common cause with a company that is robustly, constructively regulated. The issue now is how all of us involved can build on this potential in ways that are imaginative, preserving the best of the existing system while introducing innovations that will help drive it forward. The National Lottery Commission has an open mind, and a willingness and capability to work to achieve this aim.