National Lottery Bill

I rise to oppose the Motion that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill. As I made clear on Second Reading, the provisions in this clause cause me considerable concern on behalf of those who look after historic buildings, particularly our historic churches and cathedrals. The intention behind the provision is one of strict logic. Lottery distributors are given a specific proportion of proceeds from lottery tickets and any interests they accrue on the balances they hold shall be allocated in the same proportion. No lottery distributor can gain extra, as it were, by holding on to its balances in order to get more interest than the others. All distributors are treated equally. This may be a logical approach but it has significant consequences. That is why I and others in the heritage world are concerned. The body most affected by this will be the Heritage Lottery Fund. Simply because of the great wealth of the historic environment, HLF will have a significant task on its hands. As I have said in earlier debates and at Second Reading, 45 per cent of the Grade I listed buildings in the country are Church of England churches and the repair needs alone of churches and cathedrals are very considerable. A survey of the 16,000 parishes in 2003 and the quinquennial report showed that £373 million—or probably more—was needed for repairs. This takes no account of significant projects that churches may wish to carry out in the interests of the wider community. Major projects on buildings—be they repairs or new works—take time and money. Once applicants have been offered a grant, they need to finalise the funding package, make sure they have the necessary consents, draw up specifications, go to tender and instruct builders. Even when they start work, HLF will not pay all the money immediately; it will want to see that progress is satisfactory. HLF, meanwhile, must make sure that it has the money it has committed. It cannot allocate it elsewhere. It can only depend, to a certain extent, on money coming from further lottery tickets. So it must keep some money in the bank. This is not a perverse incentive to hold on to balances to gain interest; it is simply being prudent to ensure that the money is there when needed. Clause 9 will therefore reduce the total available to them. Interestingly—I do not know whether the Government have thought this through—it will also mean that HLF is subsidising other lottery distributors. Perhaps I may illustrate this point using figures that are easy to grasp. Let us say that the total interest accrued by all lottery distributors to their balances is £100 million. Let us also say that the proportion of that accumulated by balances held by HLF is £30 million. At present, HLF keeps it and it can be used to augment its existing income. Under Clause 9, it would keep only £16.5 million—16.5 per cent—just as it receives 16.5 per cent of lottery proceeds in the first place. This means that HLF would lose £13.5 million—at least in the simple example I have given—and that £13.5 million would be shared among the other lottery distributors. They gain extra funds—which is very nice for them—as a result of the needs of the heritage sector to hold money for major capital works. I question whether that is right. The Government have recently consulted on the future of the lottery and what the priorities should be after 2009. The question of the moneys available to heritage, both from taxpayers’ money and lottery funding, needs to be addressed seriously. Heritage and our churches need more money, not less. The same message is coming in consistently from the General Synod of the Church of England and from English Heritage and the Inspired! campaign that they are shortly to launch. Repair grants for churches are no higher now in real terms than they were in 1994 and have kept their level only because of the contribution of HLF itself. In the same period, building costs have risen by 70 per cent. Churches matter to the people of this country, be they worshippers or not. They contribute considerably to the social capital of the community and yet they are largely dependent on volunteers and need more help. If the Minister is adamant on retaining the clause, I hope he will be able to reassure the Committee that heritage will receive a significantly greater proportion of the total lottery funds after 2009 in compensation, to enable us, as a country, to look after our inheritance and to enable us and others to enjoy and appreciate it as it deserves.