National Lottery Bill

I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) to his new role on the Front Bench. I am sure he will find it a very fulfilling one. He mentioned that he did not have the enjoyable experience of serving on the Standing Committee, which I certainly found interesting, but no doubt there are many future Committees for him to look forward to. As has been outlined, amendments Nos. 2 and 3 remove the prescriptive powers of the Secretary of State which would otherwise be introduced. We support that. The view has emerged through Second Reading, Committee and Report that it is much better to ensure that lottery distribution is kept as independent of the Government as possible. That view is supported by the public. A poll for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations found that 73 per cent. of people wanted lottery funds to be distributed by an independent body. As the Bill is drafted, the Big Lottery Fund is not such a body, as the Secretary of State has the power to prescribe to whom it gives money and what it does. We support amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Amendment No. 4 also revisits ground that was covered in earlier stages of the Bill regarding the percentage of the Big Lottery Fund’s funding that will go towards communities and charities. On Second Reading, as has been mentioned, the Minister pointed out that that would be between 60 and 70 per cent., but in Committee he was unwilling for that figure to be written into the Bill, as called for by amendment No. 27, which both Opposition parties supported. We still believe it is important for that assurance to be enshrined in the Bill. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) argued that the Big Lottery Fund had come to the figure of 60 to 70 per cent., but without any assurances, there was no guarantee that it would not change its mind at some later date. After all, the members of the Big Lottery Fund would no doubt change, and Ministers have even been known to change. Writing the figure into the Bill would give communities and charitable organisations the assurance that they seek. The Minister’s argument was that it would not be helpful to have that set in stone. We must remember that the original National Lottery etc. Act 1993 set in stone the percentages of good causes money that had to be distributed by each distributor. The National Lottery Act 1998 adjusted those figures, but set them in stone. The Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 adjusted the figures again, and once more they were set in stone. The Bill itself proposes changes to the proportion of funding going to various bodies. The Act as amended will contain such specifics as the fact that 2.6 per cent. of the 16 per cent. of lottery money going to sport should go to the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, and that 1.16 per cent. of the 16 per cent. spent on arts should go to Scottish Screen, so I am a little confused about how the Minister can argue for all that prescription—all those powers to tell the Big Lottery Fund what it should be doing—and then say that it would be a problem to set in stone the percentage of the money that should go to voluntary organisations. That does not seem to fit. As we know, things change, and an assurance in the Bill would be a welcome guarantee for those involved. Amendment No. 5 deals with a related issue—involving the voluntary sector in consultation. As was mentioned in Committee, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is not usually judged to have a good record on consulting the voluntary sector. [Interruption.] It was mentioned in Committee on various occasions that there were concerns about how that was done. Including the new wording in the Bill would help to enshrine the best practice. If the Minister feels that the Department has a good record of which it can be proud, he will have no difficulty including those lines in the Bill to ensure best practice. If the Secretary of State is to have the power to prescribe expenditure that is likely to go to not-for-profit organisations, those organisations have a specific interest in the new power and should be consulted when it is used. That should be included in the Bill. Amendment 11, too, would restrict the powers of the Secretary of State. The current wording would force the Big Lottery Fund to comply with decisions by the Secretary of State, rather than taking account of them. I have no problem with the Secretary of State advising, giving counsel or putting points to the Big Lottery Fund. That is fair enough, but the power to make it comply is a step too far. In Committee, the Minister said:"““I have already announced that we have adopted a light touch on the direction of the Big Lottery Fund.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 October 2005; c. 110.]" In my view, a light touch involves cajoling, encouraging or putting forward points, not making an organisation comply. How would the Government respond if, for example, unwelcome stories appeared in the press? Would they encourage the Big Lottery Fund to change its awards? I think that an advisory role is much more appropriate, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House share that view. In a letter dated 1 November to Denis Vaughan, president of the Council for the Advancement of Arts, Recreation and Education, Sir John Major, who, as has been said many times in the course of this Bill, was the architect of the lottery, said:"““It is scandalous how the Government have so emasculated the original purpose of the Lottery and I do take every suitable opportunity to raise this matter publicly. I shall continue to do so until the resources that were intended for the original good causes are returned to them.””" It is important to ensure that the lottery’s independence is preserved, and the Secretary of State’s powers should therefore be restricted. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) withdraw amendment No. 10. We voted against clause 19 in Committee, but we understand its impact in allowing social enterprises to receive funding—social enterprises can often deliver projects effectively, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House support them. Clause 19 also raises some concerns about additionality, which we have already debated today. I hope that those concerns are addressed and that clause 19 is not used to put lottery funding into Government projects, which is not what the lottery was set up for.