National Lottery Bill

I can assure the Committee that I am always prepared for stand part debates. As has been indicated, it is the privilege of noble Lords to speak in clause stand part debates whenever they choose. We are grateful when it is indicated beforehand because it enables us to polish up and refine our arguments even more than usual. So if this reply is a little rusty and a little crude, it is because I was not quite certain that the clause stand part question would be debated on the basis of the right reverend Prelate’s arguments, which I fully respect. I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that the proposed new arrangements in the clause are designed to make matters fairer and more transparent for all and not to penalise particular good causes or distributors. The question of the position of churches was aired substantially in the other place, not least, of course, because the distributor is the one which is likely to have the longest time lag between distribution and effect. When we were discussing earlier amendments in this area we gave due recognition to the fact that long-term commitments would have to be entered into which would need to be respected. I want to reiterate the reassurances that I hoped I had given on that amendment. We cannot tell how quickly the present balances will be reduced. I indicated that they had been reduced by 40 per cent since 1999. That progress is not as fast as we would wish. We reiterate that, as the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee attest, unnecessary large balances are not of benefit to the nation. Those who benefit from them are few and far between. Some distributors might feel slightly reassured by the fact that they can meet any possible demand made on them, but they also know that the National Audit Office does not think much of it, that the Public Accounts Committee is critical, and that the Government want them to come down, as they want to see the money used intelligently. The pressure is there. The anxieties articulated by the right reverend Prelate must also be taken into account. The Heritage Lottery Fund must not be put in a position in which it cannot support its many worthy projects, of which churches are a significant part because of their significance both in architectural terms and for local communities. With balances continuing to fall, in line with Government policy, the new arrangements, by the time that they are likely to take effect, will have no major impact on any particular good cause or distributor. We are talking about substantial balances being run down; we are not talking about a dramatic occurrence with an adverse effect on anybody. No distributor is quaking under the pressure being exerted to get balances down. Nor would any recipient have cause for alarm about a concern to ensure that the distributor is distributing rather than holding on to resources that could usefully be deployed in the community. I give that reassurance to the right reverend Prelate. I am grateful for this short debate. I hope that I have clarified the significance of Clause 9. The clause produces a formula for a position of last resort which encourages progress on reducing these balances and putting them to good use for the community. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel reassured enough to agree to the clause remaining in the Bill.