National Lottery Bill

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, in fairness, we were trying to appreciate the fact that there are grey areas at times. We would like to think that the issue was entirely straightforward, but our contention is that that grey area has been greatly abused by the way in which the Government have sought to allow the Big Lottery Fund to make its own distributions. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, if we were to use the word ““always””, the provision could be open to all sorts of abuse. Indeed, the Government might be given an opportunity to walk away very happily from certain obligations. They could rely entirely on funding those obligations from lottery funds. We used the word ““usually”” to try, as far as possible, to adopt a pragmatic approach, while recognising that grey areas of expenditure may arise sometimes. Such financial provision might be covered generally by lottery funding, but also by Government expenditure—we are trying to get that balance right. Our contention—I think it is also that of the Liberal Democrats—is that we have not got that balance entirely right and that, recently, a coach and horses has been driven through the original idea and the original causes of the 1993 Act. In the 1992 White Paper, in which the national lottery was initially suggested, it was stated that the lottery would fund only projects additional to those that would otherwise be funded by the public through general taxation. In written evidence to the fifth report of 2003–04 of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport defined the principle of additionality as not allowing lottery funding to"““become a substitute for funding that would normally fall into mainstream Government spending””" and stated that it"““remains firmly committed to that principle.””" The Select Committee’s report on the reform of the national lottery said:"““Many witnesses told the Committee that the principle of additionality was becoming increasingly eroded.””" Obviously, those witnesses are experts in the field. It continued:"““The Lottery Council told us that ‘additionality is something we take a strong line on, and we think that that line is getting blurred’ and that ‘there is a great deal of concern about the erosion of the additionality principle.’ The NCVO believed that ‘Lottery funding should be independent from Government but accountable to Parliament; that is should be additional to what should be properly spent by Government and not a substitute for it.’ It was concerned that that was not happening.””" The Select Committee therefore found in its conclusion that the additionality principle was being eroded, and it deplored that erosion in paragraph 165 of the report to which I referred. We believe that it is necessary to include provisions on additionality in the Bill. New clause 2 would do that in a practical fashion by requiring distributing bodies and the Secretary of State to have regard to the principle when exercising their relevant functions under the Bill. We contend that the Government have betrayed the lottery’s founding principles by using lottery money for spending that should have come from taxes. Only this morning, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, the right-of-centre Centre for Policy Studies—[Interruption.] It is Conservative supporting, at least. The centre called for a stop to the Government’s ““larceny”” and ““plundering””. Perhaps we would not use such emotive terms in this era of modernised Conservative thinking, but none the less there is little doubt that lottery money has been used, and increasingly will be used, to bail out the Government on some of their spending plans. We fear that if the Bill that is passed does not address additionality, we will simply entrench and extend the use of lottery funds for matters that should be met out of general taxation. As I am sure that the Minister will point out, there are sometimes grey areas regarding lottery expenditure, and it was thus difficult to couch the new clauses in exact terms. However, it is also clear that we have moved significantly away from the founding principles of the lottery. We believe that the Labour Government are, via the Big Lottery Fund and the Heritage Lottery Fund, imposing on distributing bodies a mandatory policy direction that is in line with Government objectives. For example, a significant proportion of Heritage Lottery Fund grants are awarded to schemes that can show a measurable contribution towards addressing social and economic deprivation. We have no objection to the idea of addressing that problem, but we must question whether lottery money should be expended in such a way. I was advised only this week by Trevor Watkins of Leonard Cheshire that a concentration on specific areas of the United Kingdom for eligibility has led to unnecessary duplication in bureaucracy for charities that work throughout the UK. The absence of a UK-wide Big Lottery Fund will mean that multiple applications for grants under the lottery will be required, which could be wasteful and create a strong disincentive for small nationwide charities to apply for funds to which they would otherwise be entitled. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Bath stole my thunder by citing an entire quotation from the former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, during whose premiership the lottery was founded. However, I shall reiterate a few of those words. Sir John Major rightly said:"““When the Lottery Bill was going through Parliament, the Labour Opposition was at pains to stress the importance of government keeping an arms-length relationship from the Lottery and, in particular, grant distribution. But, since it took power, Labour has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer.””" We tabled new clause 2 as an attempt to row back from that regrettable tendency, which undermines many of the objectives that are close to the hearts of the many millions of our fellow countrymen who play the national lottery. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to not only new clause 2, but new clause 1. We await his views with interest, but unless we are entirely satisfied, I give notice that we will press the matter to a Division.