National Lottery Bill

moved Amendment No. 8:"Page 6, line 14, at end insert—" ““(   )   such other persons as he thinks appropriate”” The right reverend Prelate said: This is a very simple amendment, and I hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically. Clause 8 empowers the Secretary of State to make an order transferring the balances from one lottery distributor to another. I do not quite follow the logic or the benefits of making such a transfer unless the lottery distributor was supremely incompetent and it was evident that the applicants and the public were being disadvantaged. I hope that the Secretary of State will never have to use this power. The Bill now makes it clear that if the power is used, the balances so transferred must still be allowed for the same purposes. If they are transferred from the Big Lottery Fund, they must still be used for the purposes for which the Big Lottery Fund is set up to fulfil. If they are transferred from the Heritage Lottery Fund, they must still be used for heritage purposes. The relevant sector should not lose the money, so that is a helpful provision. The Bill also requires the affirmative procedure of both Houses before a transfer of balances can be made. That is also helpful, as the Secretary of State will not be encouraged to use the power lightly. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult the other lottery distributor to which the balances may be transferred, as well as the relevant authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, before the order is made. But there is no express provision for consultation with the persons most affected or with bodies concerned with the sector as a whole. That is what I seek to achieve through this small amendment. If money was to be transferred, many people would have relevant questions to ask. If, for example, money was being transferred from the Heritage Lottery Fund, what arrangements would there be for the new distributor to take expert advice on heritage matters? What knowledge of the issues would it have? What resources would it have? What would be the effect on applicants whose applications were caught up in the process through no fault of their own? Would it be reasonable to make the transfer at all? Is there a case for doing so? Many different bodies—from the National Amenity Societies and English Heritage to representatives of the Churches, including, at national level, the inter-denominational Churches Main Committee, which I chair, and Anglican organisations such as the Council for the Care of Churches, the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England, and the Church Heritage Forum—would have a legitimate need to be satisfied that the arrangements were going to make things better, not worse. With the thousands of Church buildings up and down the country, so many of which are the physical and social centres of their communities, Church bodies would have a major interest in such proposals, as might many applicants for large sums of money whose applications could be seriously jeopardised or at least very badly delayed by such a transfer, and as might villages, towns and cities where they are located. The views of these bodies should be sought. Exactly the same principles would apply if balances were being transferred from any other distributor, as this clause applies to them all. My amendment would therefore require consultation with such persons as the Secretary of State thought appropriate before an order was made. It does not define precisely who those persons would be; that must depend on the circumstances. But it does require the Secretary of State to consider and consult. I note there is already a very similar provision in the Bill to deal with situations in Clauses 7 and 14, which both require the Secretary of State to consult other persons. Both refer to,"““such other persons (if any) as he thinks appropriate””." I have not included ““if any”” in my amendment, as I cannot conceive of circumstances in which consultation would not be appropriate, but because the Bill already accepts this principle of statutory consultation, I sincerely hope the Minister will accept it in Clause 8, too. He may say that it is not necessary to include it in the Bill because consultation will be good practice anyway. I very much hope that consultation will indeed take place, but it would be far preferable and would give more certainty to have this provision enshrined in the Bill. I beg to move.