National Lottery Bill

: Under new clause 2, we would introduce into the National Lottery Act 1993 a requirement to consider the additionality principle. I was very interested to hear what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) had to say—we would very much support new clause 1 in any vote, if one is necessary—but I should like to explore one area with him, and perhaps the Minister will take my observation on board. Are there any circumstances in which certain projects could be paid for partly from the lottery and partly from Government expenditure? It was not entirely clear whether that could be possible with certain projects—for example, large-scale research. Again, we need to have a sense of transparency. We worry that too much in the Bill is entirely opaque. We propose a definition of additionality in new clause 2, which states that"““funding should not be provided for the provision of services, benefits, and capital works which would usually be provided by government””." New clause 2 goes somewhat further than new clause 1. The first subsection of our new clause would apply that principle to the distributing bodies when distributing money or making or reviewing their strategic plans. The second subsection would apply the same principle to the Secretary of State or his Ministers when making directions to the Big Lottery Fund or other distributing bodies under section 36E of the 1993 Act. As has become apparent, there is a plethora of new distributing bodies—Sports Council-related bodies, those related to the arts and the Heritage Lottery Fund, and so on. From the national lottery’s inception, the Government have stated their commitment to the principle of additionality during the debates that took place when the lottery was being established and in those that have taken place since May 1997.