National Lottery Bill

moved Amendment No. 5:"After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—" ““NATIONAL ACQUISITIONS FUND    In section 22(3) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c. 39) (apportionment of money in Distribution Fund) at the end of paragraph (c) insert ““10 per cent of which shall be allocated for a national acquisitions fund, for expenditure on purchasing or conserving works of art, historic properties, archives or other cultural objects of museum quality and national importance,””.”” The noble Viscount said: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says that he does not want to upset the apple cart of the Big Lottery Fund. When one sees certain apple carts, one cannot resist making the attempt. I am certainly not going to give up my attempts to upset the Big Lottery Fund. However, I am afraid that my proposed new clause in a sense puts the cart before the horse because it is predicated on my effort to persuade your Lordships to put the lottery back to its original four good causes. Noble Lords may recall that at first there were five good causes because of the inclusion of the Millennium Fund, meaning that each cause received 20 per cent. If my amendment were agreed to, the four causes would each receive 25 per cent, meaning a substantial increase in funding for the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I hope noble Lords will keep that in mind. There is an issue about national collections in this country. My noble friend Lord Brooke will remember from his days in the Department of National Heritage that Ministers were always concerned about losing national collections because although there are provisions such as acceptance in lieu, the amount is often ring-fenced by the Treasury. It only takes a death or something similar for a substantial collection to arrive on the Treasury’s doorstep all in one year and to cause a major problem. The bodies involved, such as the British Museum and the National Gallery, have put out a call for an acquisitions fund to form part of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It must be remembered that my proposal would not take money away from the various activities of the fund because, in effect, it is based on the assumption that it will enjoy an increased percentage. My amendment, which is probing in nature, asks the Government whether they have considered this issue. What is their response to the call of some of our leading institutions that there should be a fund of this kind? The figures show that the amount of money being spent on, say, preventing art objects going abroad is very small compared with the sums handed out by the Heritage Lottery Fund. I do not criticise that because it is right that it should make its own decisions. I merely recite it as a statement of fact that for its own reasons, it has felt unable to support such a fund. But what has happened are cases such as that of the recent application for the Canaletto scenes of London paintings to go abroad. Many feel that they should not go. Will the Government consider the creation of a national acquisitions fund? I do not know whether this is the right place in the Bill for such a proposal, so this amendment simply tries to ascertain the Government’s thoughts on the issue. It is important and the Bill gives us an opportunity to consider it. I beg to move.