National Lottery Bill

The Minister said he hoped that he had convinced me. He convinced me of one thing: how much I dislike the concept of the Big Lottery Fund. That is an argument I will reserve until later in the Bill, because I have not given up my campaign to restore the lottery’s original four bodies. We will come on to that. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, these are additional powers. There is no doubt about that. When it comes to heritage, sport and the arts, they only have to take account of the fact that the Big Lottery Fund will be prescribed. That is a major difference, and the Minister has not been able to answer on that. His argument is that sport and the arts are more narrowly focused, and so on, but that argument does not particularly hold water. Sporting bodies have to make huge decisions about how they fund different sports throughout the country, and they seem to do so very well. As the noble Lord says, the Government want additional powers because the amount of money coming in will rise from 33.3 to 50 per cent. The Minister did not say what the Government’s intentions are on this matter, and that is our great difficulty. He says the Bill will cover health, the environment, education and charities, but how is it that the Government have the power to come along to the Big Lottery Fund and say, ““We would like you to give this much to charities, this much to health and this much to education””? He said that these would be broad-brush powers. Then he said, ““Wait a minute—we’re also going to have powers concerning devolved expenditure and small grants””, and suddenly went into all the detail about it. Equally, he said the Government would come forward to the House with secondary legislation, but, as we all know, you cannot amend secondary legislation. We can have a debate about it, and we can either chuck it out—in which case the Government will say, ““The House of Lords shouldn’t be throwing out secondary legislation””—or accept it. We will not have a proper debate. If we are going to move forward to some form of understating, the Minister has got to be a bit clearer. Clause 7(3C) states:"““Before making an order . . . the Secretary of State shall consult—""(a) the Big Lottery Fund,""(b) the National Assembly for Wales,""(c) the Scottish Ministers,""(d) the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and""(e) such other persons (if any) as he thinks appropriate””." The Secretary of State will ask Scottish Ministers, ““How much do you want from the Big Lottery Fund?”” and they will reply, ““As much as possible, please””. Everybody will say that. But how will the Secretary of State decide who gets what? What principles will guide his decision-making? I am not asking the Minister to say exactly what anyone will get, not even the exact percentages, but what principles will guide the Government when they decide what to allocate to health, education and the environment? Will they divide the relevant money equally or will they say that one is more important than the other? We do not know and that causes us difficulties. These new additional powers allow the Government—they might say that they will not use them—to prescribe expenditure for a certain purpose and a certain region and there is nothing anyone can do about it. One only has to look at Clause 7, which lists the relevant areas and whether the expenditure is charitable or connected with health or education. We need more information on the Government’s intentions; otherwise, we shall return to the matter again and again because it raises so many issues. It would be helpful if the Minister could add to his reply. However, if he feels constrained in that regard, perhaps he will write to us or we will return to the matter on Report.