National Lottery Bill

I think that we should concentrate on the lottery’s independence and give people back the power to decide how lottery funding should be given. That is entirely consistent with the arguments that Conservative Members have advanced about giving power back and passing power down. I have several specific concerns about the Bill’s provisions, particularly the power given to the Secretary of State. Ministers have said that they are not trying to take power from the people and give it to the Government—that, in many ways, they are trying to maintain the lottery’s independence—but that argument is not supported by the Bill. The House need only look at the swingeing powers taken under proposed new section 36E of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which would require the Big Lottery Fund to comply with directions given by the Secretary of State in almost every case, even if those directions are about who is to run the fund. The fact that such powers are being taken makes one question the independence of the organisation. Further restrictions are built into proposed new section 36B, which enables the Secretary of State to limit the monetary value of awards given to certain organisations. It is hardly surprising that voluntary and charitable groups have voiced considerable concern about such provisions. Luke FitzHerbert, a senior researcher at the Directory of Social Change, has described the proposals as"““a naked seizure of control””," and Stephen Bubb, of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, says that the Bill"““undermines the independence and the integrity of the grant-making system.””" The Bill clearly takes power back into the Government’s hands, so such expressions of concern are not surprising. The Secretary of State is away, and I understand why she could not be present for Second Reading, but it is interesting to read a letter that she kindly sent to me and other new Members in which she set out the reasons to support the Bill. Referring to the New Opportunities Fund, she wrote:"““The Fund was also different in that it has been directed to distribute money in support of initiatives specified by Government, but still taking individual grant decisions at arm’s length from Government as the other distributors do.””" The point I take from that is that the initiatives are ““specified by Government””—in other words, the fund is directed by the Government. Although Ministers might argue that individual grants are determined by the fund, if the overall framework and certain decisions are specified by the Government, what we see is direction by the Government. I congratulate the Bill draftsmen on trying to set out the fund’s independence by creating, in effect, a corporate body for the Big Lottery Fund and stating in schedule 2:"““The Fund shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown””." However, given all the powers reserved under the Bill and the clear prescription of the fund’s terms of reference, the Big Lottery Fund looks very much like a servant or agent of the Government. The more closely one examines the legislation and the powers reserved for the Secretary of State, the more one thinks that it might have been clearer to state that the Secretary of State shall have control over 50 per cent. of the funds from the lottery and she will specify as she sees fit in relation to that money. I have a couple of specific questions about the Bill. I note that clause 8, on the reallocation of funds, says that in relation to the allocation between individual distributors, for example, Sport England, if we feel that that organisation is not performing correctly, the fund would be ring-fenced for the same beneficiary, so funds could be allocated to another sports body. Is there any provision that would prevent that going to the Big Lottery Fund? It seems that the 50 per cent. threshold is being increased. I wonder whether the Minister could answer that specific point when he replies. A point that emerged from the Secretary of State’s interesting letter was the funding that would come from the Big Lottery Fund—she referred to £60 million being made available for international grants. My understanding is that lottery funding has been ring-fenced for applications within the UK. There may be a misunderstanding on my part, but I am sure that it is not the public’s understanding of how the money would be allocated. Perhaps the Minister would follow up this point when he replies to the debate. I am left with the impression that the Government seek to extend control over the way in which lottery money is to be allocated. I shall refer to another poll, as I know that the Minister was keen to emphasise the importance of consulting the public. An ICM poll published last year showed that 73 per cent. of the public supported an independent public body deciding how lottery money was to be spent. From what I see in the Bill, that is not what we have on offer. The purpose behind the Bill is to take greater control, greater power and greater authority into the hands of the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, that is taking control further away from the people who buy the tickets and voluntarily spend their money on the lottery in good faith. I cannot support the Bill because of the powers that it is designed to put, to a much greater extent, in the Government’s hands.