National Lottery Bill

I thank the Minister for giving me a steer on what my amendment should be at Report. He clearly said that it should be an enabling amendment and that I had got my limit wrong—it should be up to 50 per cent. I am grateful for his help and I will redraft the amendment as best I can. This debate has emphasised that this is a serious issue. It is not just a matter for works of art that come from private hands. Increasingly, local authorities sell part of their collections. Perhaps I can use this occasion as a plug for the Public Catalogue Foundation which is cataloguing the works of art of local authorities and various other bodies. The quicker that process is done, the less such authorities will be encouraged to sell off some of their works of art. The foundation is not funded by the lottery or by the Government. The problem is that the money available can go on just one picture or one statue. The fact that no money is left in the Treasury then puts an undue burden on the National Heritage Memorial Fund. There should be a fund, built up over a period of time, that could deal with these situations. That is not being over-prescriptive; it is saying to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, in the way that the Government can with regard to the Big Lottery Fund, ““If you wish, you could set aside some money””. We discussed the National Heritage Memorial Fund and unspent balances on Second Reading, and we will go on to discuss interest. Unspent balances could be put aside for situations which will undoubtedly arise. This issue is of extreme concern in the heritage world; it is of concern to most of the directors of the national museums and galleries in this country. There is more to be done. I am not sure what the amendment should be, but if the Minister will allow us, we may be able to discuss it further between now and Report. I am grateful for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.