National Lottery Bill

The noble Viscount has described what is going on now—and we intend to change that. So I hope that he will oppose the amendments, because our broader categories will give the Big Lottery Fund greater discretion on expenditure. We are not talking about micro-management, but orders that will come before both Houses of Parliament every three years or so at the most. They will be about broad areas of funding and broad objectives. We have indicated the themes. We are merely saying that the argument that appears to come from the Opposition Benches is extraordinary. The new Big Lottery Fund comprises 50 per cent of expenditure on good causes. We know that the other 50 per cent will go down narrow, well-defined, prescriptive channels, with clearly defined and limited recipients. To say that there should be a free-for all in the other area, and that this House, the other place or anyone else should have no view about such substantial expenditure, and that it should not broadly be prescribed, seems a very odd argument. It is an argument for imbalance and is contrary to what goes on at present, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, elicited from me. It does not stand up to examination. That is why I hope that the noble Viscount will be convinced that I have a good argument.