AS BRITAIN moves into an election year, and is drawn closer to the rest of Europe, political parties are striving to come up with novel suggestions for what to do about the arts. Only one new idea seems to have found favour officially or unofficially across the political spectrum: the introduc- tion of a national lottery, whose proceeds could be used to endow not only the arts, but also sport and the environment. The Labour Party undertakes to give a lottery 'serious consideration' in its Arts and Media policy document.' The Conservative Minister for the Arts has occasionally men- tioned the possibility, most recently at the publication last month of the Reviewing Committee's report on the system of controls on the export of works of art.2 As we reported in November, the Minister had asked the Reviewing Committee to consider alternatives to the present system of export controls, including listing, 'bearing in mind constraints on expenditure'. Despite an attempt to present the report as a recommendation of listing ("'Listing could safeguard British Heritage" says Export Committee' was the headline of the press release), no-one was fooled. In an exceptionally lucid document, punctuated by bursts of melancholy humour, the Committee makes it clear that listing would be a last resort, to be adopted with the greatest reluctance only if the Treasury refuses to make more money available for the public purchase of'heritage' items. It spells out the disadvantages and undesirable consequences of listing without compensation - taxation by the back door, the encouragement of smuggling, greater secrecy on the part of owners - and points out that listing with compensation would be cumbersome and possibly as expensive as funding the present system. There is no doubt that the Waverley committee or an equivalent would have to continue, both to 'spot list' new items excavated from the ground or the corridors of country houses, and to give careful consideration to unlisted items. Certainly a proper listing system could not be introduced without primary legislation, which is in any case long overdue (the report delicately avoids reference to the reception listing without compensation might receive in the House of Lords). Among the many excellent positive suggestions made by the report for amendment of the present system, the most important is that a fourth clause should be added to the Waverley criteria to cover items which form part of outstanding collections. It also suggests that the actual compilation of a list, irrespective of how it was then used, would help to formulate priorities. The Minister appears to be in no hurry to initiate legis- lation. He has asked for comments on the report by the end of March. But in the meantime he has another idea. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry already has wide powers by virtue of the wartime fire-arms legislation of which the Waverley system is a bizarre offshoot. He might on rare occasions use his existing powers to refuse an export licence outright, even if no purchaser had come forward. Such a 'scheme' might encourage owners to seek private treaty sales to public collections in Britain. The cases the Minister has in mind would involve objects with 'the equivalent heritage importance of the Domesday Book and the Mappa Mundi'. It is not clear whether he means that such items would be included in, or comprise, a list (secret or published), or whether owners would be left to guess if an object they wished to sell was as important as the Domesday Book. Presumably the Badminton Cabinet and the Three Graces (whatever happened to them, by the way?) would not qualify. Would the Sutherland Titians also be too foreign? The Reviewing Committee's report seems to refer in advance to the Minister's 'scheme' when it points out that (p. 14, para.79) 'if it were to be suggested that the powers should be used to ban indefinitely the export of the Sutherland pictures just because the nation could not afford a matching offer, there would be such concern about a judical review that it seems unlikely that the powers would be invoked'. The element of chance for owners involved in the Min- ister's 'scheme' (which must share the prize for ad hoccery previously claimed by the 'Ridley rules' inviting private offers for export-stopped items) brings us to the question of a national lottery. From this, the Minister suggested, might come the extra ?15-20 million which the Reviewing Committee believes sufficient to keep the Waverley system in operation. National lotteries are very common, and every country in the EEC except Britain has one. The introduction of the single market on Ist January 1993 has focused attention on the possibility of a British lottery, since thereafter it will be increasingly hard, if not illegal, to ban promotion of European lotteries in the UK. It is easy to see why both parties are clutching at this straw. A national lottery would be an entirely new source of revenue, requiring minimal government involvement, and relying on that boundless human resource - cupidity. The sums talked of - ?600 million pounds a year - could make a serious contribution in all sorts of areas, of which securing works of art for the nation would be only one. It is perhaps not for this Magazine to comment on the incongruity of using the proceeds of games of chance to foster the 'finer emotions'. However, careful thought needs to be given to the question of how lottery money is to be allocated. If it means the setting up of yet another com- mittee, to which individual applications have to be made, with the added hurdle that museums have to compete with football stadia, we shall not be much further forward.

the powers would be invoked'. The element of chance for owners involved in the Min- ister's 'scheme' (which must share the prize for ad hoccery previously claimed by the 'Ridley rules' inviting private offers for export-stopped items) brings us to the question of a national lottery. From this, the Minister suggested, might come the extra ?15-20 million which the Reviewing Committee believes sufficient to keep the Waverley system in operation. National lotteries are very common, and every country in the EEC except Britain has one. The introduction of the single market on Ist January 1993 has focused attention on the possibility of a British lottery, since thereafter it will be increasingly hard, if not illegal, to ban promotion of European lotteries in the UK. It is easy to see why both parties are clutching at this straw. A national lottery would be an entirely new source of revenue, requiring minimal government involvement, and relying on that boundless human resource - cupidity. The sums talked of - ?600 million pounds a year - could make a serious contribution in all sorts of areas, of which securing works of art for the nation would be only one. It is perhaps not for this Magazine to comment on the incongruity of using the proceeds of games of chance to foster the 'finer emotions'. However, careful thought needs to be given to the question of how lottery money is to be allocated. If it means the setting up of yet another com- mittee, to which individual applications have to be made, with the added hurdle that museums have to compete with football stadia, we shall not be much further forward.