National Lottery Bill

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments, but I emphasise that we do not believe that it will be enough to restrict the power to the sole benefit of the distributing bodies. Our definition is wide because there is such a wide range of publicity activities for those bodies to get involved in. Public awareness of the lottery can take many forms and we would not want to limit how the distributing bodies can convey awareness of what the lottery has funded. The distributing bodies must be able to tell all the good news stories about the good causes and about how people are benefiting from lottery funding. To that end, we want to ensure that they can participate fully in the work of the national lottery promotions unit, which seeks to raise positive awareness of, and support for, the benefits of national lottery good cause funding across the whole country. Specific examples of that wider promotion are the hugely successful national lottery day and the national lottery awards. Those innovations are designed to raise public awareness of how lottery money is used for good causes, and both are held under the auspices of the national lottery promotions unit. We want to ensure that they and other promotions of the lottery good causes can continue, and retain the full engagement of the distributing bodies. I realise that some unintentional confusion was generated in Standing Committee when the hon. Member for Bath picked up a typographical error in the explanatory notes. I have served on many Committees with him and know that he always goes through such notes very carefully. With his eagle eye, he spotted that the notes said that the process would contribute to the ““brand”” health of the lottery. They should have said that the process will contribute to the ““broad”” health of the lottery, and that is what will appear in the revised version that I hope will come out tomorrow. At the time, I did not recognise the significance of what the hon. Member for Bath was saying. I hope that he will accept my apologies and assurances in respect of this matter. To sum up, new clause 3 is intended to be helpful, but it would put another bureaucratic obstacle in the way of getting lottery money more quickly to good causes. I am sure that the House would not want that to happen. Amendment No. 13 is similarly well intentioned, but it would place unreasonable restrictions on the ability of distributing bodies to be fully involved in work to promote the lottery good causes and would therefore undermine the good work of the national lottery promotions unit. The fact that the lottery can be undermined by inaccurate reporting shows that lottery promoters need the powers in the Bill so that they can give a positive and proactive account of what is happening with the good causes, and in that way retain public support. I therefore hope that new clause 3 and amendment No. 13 be withdrawn.