$.5M lotto ticket sold after draw

SOMEONE was able to buy a winning National Lottery ticket worth $500,000 after the draw had taken place.

This strange case was revealed in the “Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) 2003 to 2004” whose members come from both Houses of Parliament and from all political persuasions. Chaired by St Joseph MP Gerald Yetming, the PAC is a watchdog on public spending which was set up under the Republican Constitution of 1976. It examined NLCB accounts for 1993 to 1999.

“The Committee, in reviewing the 1995 accounts, took issue with unsold tickets at the end of the draw being paid for after the draw. This batch of tickets contained a winning ticket of $500,000.”

The report said this sale had occurred despite the fact that “unsold tickets are the property of the National Lotteries Control Board (NLCB).”

The PAC said it is not entirely satisfied with the explanations given by the board on its policy on donations, promotions, and the arrangement with G-Tech Corporation.

“The (NLCB) chairman, Mr Louis Lee Sing, was subsequently called before the Committee to provide further clarification on the matter.”

The report includes the minutes of a PAC meeting on February 4, 2004 which shed some light on the lottery ticket. It stated: “In reply to a query raised about the payments made for non-shredded tickets that appeared in the 1995 accounts, it was explained that this was not in keeping with NLCB’s policy but was the result of independent action by a former Director.”

The PAC report also raised questions about the NLCB’s policy on donations, advertising and investments. The February 4 PAC minutes disclosed: “A donations policy had only been implemented in 2003, that the Minister’s approval was required for sums above $25,000, and the limit per annum was 0.05 percent of revenue.”

However also in the report, the minutes of a PAC meeting on July 21, 2004 revealed: “The officials of the NLCB informed the Committee (PAC) that the Board had ceased donations, based on legal advice received.”

On the issue of investments, the PAC in its February 4 minutes called on the NLCB to provide details of over $30 million in investments shown in its 1999 accounts.

The PAC minutes of July 21, 2004 queried NLCB’s payment of $15 million in advertising costs to G-Tech, an international firm which runs the National Lottery. In reply the NLCB chairman reportedly said the sum was paid in respect of all the services provided by G-Tech for that year. He said these services were stated in the clauses of the seven-year contract, and that on the basis of intended revenue targets, G-Tech was granted a budget that covered all design and advertising costs.

“The Chairman of the NLCB commented that the current Board had inherited the contractual arrangement with G-Tech. He was unable to proffer any reasons for the sort of contract entered into.”

The minutes said Lee Sing was as yet unable to say whether the contract could be terminated within the seven-year period but said he would find out.

Presumably referring to G-Tech, the PAC queried whether the NLCB was getting value for money in the area of advertising when a comparison is made with what local firms could offer at a similar or lower cost.

The PAC in the same minutes urged that the public be made aware of the NLCB’s criteria for sponsorship. Sponsorship should be monitored, linked to level of sales, capped for individual projects, and predetermined for some major cultural and national events.

Among the recommendations of its report, the PAC urged: “The Committee should be empowered to report directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on matters which, having regard to the Auditor General’s Reports or other reports, appear to be criminal in nature.”