National Lottery Bill

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, but if my noble friend Lord Pendry wanted to correct the impression that he was giving wholehearted support too often to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, he could have agreed with Amendment No. 11—which would still have upset me a little, as I am going to explain why I want it withdrawn—but then condemned the noble Lord’s Amendment No. 12, which runs somewhat contrary to Amendment No. 11. Then he and I would have been in agreement—and it is always helpful if the Front Benches and Back Benches see eye to eye in these circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that he agreed with the spirit but not the letter of the amendment. Of course, the Government agree with the spirit; it is the letter—or three letters—which upset us, in that the amendment would remove the three letters of the word ““may””. I shall have the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on my side with regard to that when I identify the problem. Of course, we accept the spirit behind the amendment, but we do not think that it should be a duty; it should be a power. People have the right to know where lottery money is spent, so I accept entirely the spirit of the amendment, and I am with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on that. I can also see why the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to extend the concept. The noble Lord wishes to ensure that the distributing bodies play a full part in acknowledging where lottery funding has gone, and that in doing so, they let the public know what projects in their area have received lottery funding and which programmes that the distributors operate are funded with lottery money. My noble friend Lord Pendry said why he thought that was also of advantage to the community. As a government, we want to achieve the same ends, but there is a crucial difference. We feel that there is no difference in practice between what we are trying to achieve through a power and what the noble Lord seeks to achieve as a duty. We expect the distributing bodies and the beneficiaries of lottery grants to use the National Lottery common brand, which is based on the crossed-fingers logo, to show people how lottery money is being used and which local projects and programmes have benefited from lottery funding. The logo is one of the most recognised brands in this country; it achieves 94 per cent recognition rate, which is very high. I know that my noble friend Lord Pendry would be satisfied only with 100 per cent—but he will recognise that brands established long before the National Lottery cannot achieve 100 per cent. So 94 per cent recognition of the symbol is a pretty good rate, and we expect that it is used frequently. The majority of lottery distributors are already enforcing the use of the common brand by making it a condition of grant for beneficiaries to acknowledge the lottery grants they receive in this way. They also offer comprehensive guidance to grant beneficiaries, which shows them how to use the common brand effectively and to the best advantage to show people that their funding has come from the National Lottery. But we do not need to replace the power that we are giving the distributing bodies to publicise their grants. With a power we can achieve the same ends, and are gradually doing so, while a duty would open up areas of great complexity. We know that the main concern is to have wide display of the lottery common brand. Could we or the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, draw up effective arrangements that would encompass the detail required to meet every branding scenario; for example, the form of materials that should be used and how they should be used? What about the penalties for not complying with this? Any arrangement would have to have a method of enforcement if it were a duty. And it would have to reflect the multiplicity of branding scenarios; we all know that lottery money is spent on a very wide range of projects. In some cases it might prove impossible and impractical to realise this branding concept. What about branding a church with the Lotto brand, or a hospital scanner? What would we do about the Angel of the North—should we put a brand on a sculpture to show that it was lottery-funded? What about a piece of music that has been composed as a result of a lottery grant? Where is the logo going to be? The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is saying not that there should be power to do this where you can, or that we should be reasonable and encourage people to demonstrate their support for the lottery, but that it should be a duty to do so. Amendment No. 12 runs somewhat contrary to that, and seeks to prevent lottery distributors encouraging participation in activities involving the lottery in general. I understand why this amendment has been tabled. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, also articulated some important arguments on this. Concern has been expressed by the voluntary and community sector that Clause 11 would allow promotion of lottery games and might imply that playing the lottery was an alternative to giving money to charities. As we said in another place, we have no such intention of setting up the lottery as an alternative and a rival to charity. The characteristic intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, which I always look forward to with the greatest enthusiasm, has produced a series of questions I cannot answer from the Dispatch Box. I am going to compose a very long and involved letter in reply, which will have to suffice with regard to the details he has brought forward this evening. He will forgive me for that. We have made clear many times that distributors will not be in the business of promoting the National Lottery games. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, that is Camelot’s role, a task it does very well. We know that people who play the lottery are pleased that some 28 per cent of the money they have handed over goes to good causes, so they appreciate that there is a connection between money spent playing the game and money going to good causes. But it is important to ensure that distributors have the power to see that link when they publicise where lottery players’ money has been spent. Clause 11 will ensure that all lottery distributors can take part fully in the activities of the National Lottery Promotions Unit, which seeks to raise positive awareness of, and support for, the benefits of National Lottery good cause funding across the country. The promotion unit already drives a lot of well regarded work. We believe it is important that distributors should have the power to become fully engaged in the activities the unit organises; not promoting the games, but ensuring that people can see where the lottery good cause money has been spent, a distinction we are seeking to emphasise. We share the anxieties about promotion of the games as a competitor to charities, but we think it is right that people should be able to see the connection between the lottery and good cause money that has been spent. It seems a little odd that the noble Lord should be making a requirement that lottery distributors participate in arrangements for publicising lottery good cause funding while seeking to prevent those same distributors having the clear power to take part, and encourage participation, in activities relating to the lottery, such as a National Lottery day. It must be right that distributors can play their full part in that. That is different from setting the lottery up as an alternative to charities and contribution thereto. This has been a useful debate. There is a tension between the two amendments. I hope noble Lords will recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, enjoined us to, that the Government share in the spirit of Amendment No. 11. We think we can achieve the aims of the amendment without changing the nature of the Bill, and that is our intention. On Amendment No. 12, we think we have drawn the line between effective publicising of the lottery and setting it up as a rival to charitable giving, a fear the noble Viscount expressed when he moved his amendment.