National Lottery Bill

moved Amendment No. 13:"After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—" ““ADDITIONALITY    After section 25E of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c. 39) (as inserted by section 11 of this Act) insert— ““25F   THE ADDITIONALITY PRINCIPLE (1)   A body which distributes money under section 25(1) shall have regard to the principle that funding under that section should not be provided for the provision of services, benefits and capital works which would usually be provided by core government spending when— (a)   determining the persons to whom, the purposes for which and the conditions subject to which the body distributes any money under section 25(1); (b)   preparing, adopting, reviewing, modifying or replacing a strategic plan under section 25C or 25D. (2)   The Secretary of State shall have regard, where relevant, to the principle that funding under section 25 should not be provided for the provision of services, benefits and capital works which would usually be provided by core government spending when giving any direction under section 26 or 36E.”””” The noble Viscount said: We now move to the thorny and difficult issue of additionality. One of the problems there has been throughout the debate as this Bill has passed through another place and this House is that the Government have always accepted the principle of additionality but have never admitted when they have broken it. It is perfectly clear that they have broken it on a number of occasions. Indeed, that is not just my view but is also the view of the National Audit Office and of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in another place—which I remind the Minister has a majority of Members of his party. The question is, what can be done about it? I wish to discuss my Amendment No. 13 and Amendment No. 14, which concerns reporting, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in the next group. We need to have a debate about the principles of additionality. I shall not go through the list of what has been given out. Every time that is brought up in another place the Minister tells the various Members who have spoken what their constituencies have received. However, I want to consider the principles of additionality. The Minister, Mr Caborn, said:"““The Government provide money to some charities, which is not core Government spending. Does that mean that the lottery should not give more to charities? The Government provide money to arts, sports and heritage in many areas—that is not core, or mainstream, Government spending. Does that mean that lottery funding cannot be used as well?””.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/06; col. 1013.]" I was rather amazed by that. I do not know whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has changed since I was there or, indeed, since my noble friend Lord Brooke was there but handing out money that was not core is not something that we would have got past the Treasury, which had a rather clear view of what was core spending and what was not. I do not think that when my noble friend was Secretary of State   he ever handed out government money that was   not core. Mr Caborn’s statement is therefore extraordinary and I should be interested to hear how the Minister can justify it or perhaps explain to us what it means. It seems to me that when a department hands out money it is core spending. When the Government hand out money to the arts or sports, they do so through various distributing bodies, for example, the Arts Council. The argument put forward by Mr Caborn does not hold water. A further argument put forward was that the process would be subject to legal challenge. I am not aware of many legal challenges to the lottery being brought forward at the moment and I do not think that defining ““additionality”” would increase that likelihood. I am told—I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on this—that the distributors of the Community Fund were sometimes concerned that if they did not award grants, they would be challenged and that they were almost pressed into awarding grants because they could not adequately define their reasons for not giving them. We believe that the distributing bodies should have the freedom to decide whether to give grants. Then we are in the lucky position of applauding the decisions that we like and criticising those we do not—that is the nature of it. We believe that the distributing bodies should be independent of government. However, as we have heard throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government want to exert power when they decide to do so. The Minister said in another place that the distributing bodies would report on additionality. That is interesting for two reasons. They will comment on that only in the reports that they publicise and lay before Parliament. That is merely a commitment; we have no way of making it happen. They do not have to do it. That measure certainly needs to be written into the Bill. The matter is interesting in that it opens up the whole concept of how they are going to do it. If the distributing bodies are to report on additionality, how will they define it? The Minister must think that they can define it if they are to report on it. If it can be defined by the distributing bodies, it can be defined in the Bill. You cannot have it both ways. The distributing bodies are going to report on additionality. The Minister might look at my amendment on core government spending and say that I have not used the right words. I am happy to discuss any changes that could be made to the wording of my amendment but it seems to me that the principle is sound. If the distributing bodies can report on what is additional and what is not, it must be possible to have that protection in the Bill. The Minister in another place has given a commitment that that will happen. This is such an important provision that we need it in the Bill. If the Minister were able to say that the principles of additionality have been broken but we shall ensure that they are never broken again, that might go a long way to satisfy us, but, unfortunately, I suspect that the Minister will be unable to give us that commitment at the Dispatch Box. That is why we need something in the Bill. I remain flexible. I am not entirely sure whether my amendment or Amendment No. 14 of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is the right one. However, the principle needs to be in the Bill to make it clear to everybody. It needs to be included—I refer to amendments that we discussed earlier—given the new, large, wide-ranging powers that the Government have to prescribe. Those powers of prescription relate to the Big Lottery Fund which, after all, will take 50 per cent of all the funds available to the distributing bodies. Therefore, this is an important principle that we need to debate. We need something in the Bill as a protection in that regard. The Minister may tell me that my amendment is unworkable, in which case I would be delighted for him to advise me what would work. I am sure that he will be kind enough to do that. I hope that the Government will accept the important principle here. I beg to move.