National Lottery Bill

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would point out that the hon. Gentleman has just given a lengthier version of the cover that I had already given to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). However, you rightly chide us to move on from that issue. Notwithstanding the occasional blemishes on the record of parties on the issue, all the parties have said that they believe that additionality is a crucial issue. All parties have said that they do not wish to see the Government, whoever is in power, interfering in national lottery decisions. Given that occasionally people have strayed from that commitment, would it not be helpful to have legislation that ensured that that does not happen again in the future? During the passage of the national lottery legislation in 1993, and the changes made to it in 1998, attempts were made to add additionality to it. We have already had attempts by the Conservative party and by me to place something in the Bill. Those were attempts to define additionality, but they fell on stony ground. Indeed, the Minister rejected our proposal for a definition of additionality in Committee because he said that it would result in bureaucracy. I am not sure that that is a good reason, but our attempt was rejected for that and, no doubt, several other reasons. Today, I am taking a new approach that might find favour with the Government and obtain the support of the House. We do not suggest a definition of additionality but that the Bill should contain a requirement that the distributing bodies report annually on how they had reached their funding decisions. That would include the two crucial questions of additionality; how independence from the Government was maintained and what principles were used to maintain the distinction between core Government funding and the causes that the bodies had supported. I know that many of the distributing bodies have already committed themselves to annual reports on a variety of issues. For example, the Big Lottery Fund is already committed to reporting specifically on the additionality issue. Under the new clause, we seek to place in Bill the commitment that we have received from the biggest lottery distributor and perhaps to push the other distributors to follow suit, so that there is no opportunity to backslide in future. We have support from many quarters for the route that we have chosen. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations said:"““We believe that these commitments must be enshrined on the face of the Bill if they are to be meaningful and lasting.””" The National Campaign for the Arts said:"““The New Clause is a modest attempt to ensure that the line between Government and Lottery cash cannot become ever more blurred . . . If inappropriate political pressure is being put on the Lottery distributors, then the public should be made aware of it. If, as is insisted, no such pressure is being exerted, then there can be nothing to fear from the New Clause.””" The Minister has given support to the new clause. In Committee, he said:"““Somebody has to define the concept for the purpose of day-to-day operations, but if the concept were tied down to a definition that would be challengeable in law, those funds might be put into all types of litigation.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 November 2005; c. 244.]" He will not go down the route of placing such a definition in the Bill—although he might be persuaded to do so, given new clause 2—but he has at least made it clear that he wants something similar in the Bill and that he believes that annual reports on such issues should be produced. That is why it is crucial that the Minister should be prepared to support new clause 1, which is a modest attempt to ensure that we get something in the Bill to ensure that there is never again the possibility of blurring the distinction between national lottery money and Government-funded activity.