National Lottery Bill

If, after our last debate, there was just a slight niggle in the noble Viscount’s mind about whether I had satisfied all criteria of his amendment when he withdrew it, let me say that I do not have the slightest doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will withdraw this amendment because he will find this reply entirely satisfactory, largely because the Government share his view that it is important that this very substantial sum of money and resources should go to the voluntary sector. I have to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that I cannot give him a quantitative division of resources across the country between the categories he has identified. Let me say how it has been approached as far as concerns the Big Lottery Fund. The Big Lottery Fund decided to adopt the following definition for the voluntary and community sector in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. This is not expressed in quantitative terms but in terms of those it deems will be eligible to receive resources. It states:"““Organisations which are independent from the state, with a motivation derived from values and social purposes rather than the pursuit of profit, and the reinvestment of surpluses principally in pursuit of these values rather than for private distribution””." All bodies that have those objectives will fit in the category of potential recipients from the VCS when the Big Lottery Fund is allocating resources. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, argues that the requirement to allocate at least 60 per cent of the Big Lottery Fund to bodies whose activities are not for profit should be in the Bill. That would set it in statute. I want to establish with him an understanding that his objective will be realised but that it is not appropriate for it to be in statute. The Committee will recall that we heard substantial contributions on the matter at Second Reading, when both the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, spoke eloquently about the need for clarity in funding for the sector. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is absolutely right, first, to explain how much has been spent in the past on the sector, and, secondly, to say that we expect that at least 60 per cent—more, probably—will be spent on the sector in future. That is a matter for the Big Lottery Fund, not for government. After all, we have just had a debate in which the Opposition contended that the Government are taking too many powers to ourselves, when I have said that that prescription is of the broadest kind. Now the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says that the Government should have backing in statute for imposing that on the Big Lottery Fund. No, we do not accept that argument. First, past practice is a good guide to future behaviour. Secondly, we do not need that in statute because we know how to realise that objective without it being in the Bill. Voluntary and community organisations play a vital role in society, often working in partnership with government to deliver essential services, and frequently providing a lifeline for people in need. Such organisations have benefited enormously from the success of the National Lottery, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley rightly said. The Big Lottery Fund has given an undertaking that more than 60 per cent—between 60 and 70 per cent—of its funding will go directly to voluntary and community sector organisations. That is a higher proportion than has obtained in the past under the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund. At present, only the Community Fund’s share of the money—one-sixth overall or one-third of the Big Lottery Fund half—is allocated to charitable expenditure. Of course, money from other distributors, including the New Opportunities Fund, goes to voluntary and community sector organisations, but only the Community Fund’s one-sixth is guaranteed. We are saying that 60 to 70 per cent will be guaranteed by the framework, because the Big Lottery Fund has undertaken that voluntary and community sector organisations can count on twice as much money as before. The undertaking has been given by the boards of the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund, operating as the Big Lottery Fund. It has not been given by the Government. Given the arguments that we had on the preceding amendment, I hope that opposition Members of the Committee will recognise that there is therefore an additional strength to the argument. This is a decision, an objective, arrived at by the Big Lottery Fund itself. Of course, we fully support that undertaking, but we do not intend to enshrine it in the Bill. If opposition Members are arguing that there should be less prescription, they must accept that.