Richard Branson

The head of the People's Lottery consortium responds to an article by Andreas Whittam Smith on the awarding of the next licence to run the lottery

While I agree with Andreas Whittam Smith that any comparison of the National Lottery Commission's current difficulties with those of the Dome is wrong, it is important for the probity of the National Lottery itself that Camelot is not allowed to mount a new competition. To do so would be to cave into the bullying tactics of Camelot, because that is precisely what it wants.

While I agree with Andreas Whittam Smith that any comparison of the National Lottery Commission's current difficulties with those of the Dome is wrong, it is important for the probity of the National Lottery itself that Camelot is not allowed to mount a new competition. To do so would be to cave into the bullying tactics of Camelot, because that is precisely what it wants.

Let me explain why. Camelot is not interested in mere "equality of treatment". It knows - and has never disputed - the fact that there are three major considerations for the Commission in the award of the lottery - probity of the bidder; protection of the players' interests and the maximising of the returns for good causes. Evidence, given in court, has indicated that the People's Lottery bid was more generous than that of Camelot. Thus, Camelot finds that, even if it was able to overcome the "fit and proper" question marks hanging over its bid, then it is still in second place. In other words, its only hope lies in derailment of the entire process to the point where it is allowed to alter other aspects of its bid. As a consequence, Camelot has claimed everything about the process is unfair. A two-month extension to their licence, say, would yield Camelot incremental profits. But it would cost the People's Lottery, which makes no profits and which, until the licence is awarded, has no funding or income - other than that supplied by me and our suppliers - a great deal of money.

The evaluation of which bid gives more money to good causes is not a debate where judgement is needed. The facts are in each bid submitted on 29 February and cannot be changed by either bidder. Camelot cannot afford to accept that. That is why it is campaigning and why it must be resisted.