National Lottery Bill

I intervene only because the whole additionality principle was extremely important when I was on the National Lottery Charities Board, which I had the honour of serving during its first few years. Two issues exercised us greatly then, and I have no doubt that they exercise the different boards no less now: first, their independence from government and, secondly, additionality. We set sail originally on the absolute assurance by the Conservative government of the day that the boards, and the National Lottery Charities Board in particular, would not be expected to fund those expenditures which were the normal obligation of government to fund. That was felt to be particularly evident in the health and education sectors, and yet as we know there have been quite a few expenditures in the intervening years that I would have said breached that principle. It is not only me who is saying that; many are saying it. For example, in the NHS the National Lottery Charities Board has funded a good deal of advanced medical equipment that is available in some hospitals through government expenditure but which had not been available in other hospitals. There is considerable virtue in trying to get a handle on that thorny issue if at all possible. I say ““if at all possible”” because I well sympathise with the Government and the parliamentary draftsmen on how to incorporate this principle—if you can call it a principle—in legislation in a way that will not cause as many problems as it solves. The noble Viscount has advanced a bold and useful amendment, and I will listen not merely attentively but with fascination to what the Minister says. My sense is that the wording of the amendment is defective in a number of respects. The noble Viscount made no particular claims for the merits of the wording; he was merely trying to get the issue into play. To talk about core government spending is a dubious advantage, because I doubt very much that it is possible to say what ““core”” is in this regard. No doubt the Minister will come back on that. I want to say something about Section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which gives significant control to the Secretary of State over the distributing bodies as to the,"““matters to be taken into account in determining the persons to whom and the purposes for which . . . and in determining conditions””" subject to which the body distributes any money. Proposed new Section 36E is entitled ““Directions””, and it concerns the Big Lottery Fund. One sees there a creep in government control, because there is no doubt that the directions that can be given under proposed new Section 36E are considerably wider and more specific than the controls permissible now under Section 26 of the 1993 Act. The directions include the power of the Secretary of State not just to give directions as to the matters to be taken into account but, if this Bill goes through, he would be able to specify the persons to whom the fund may make grants, the purposes for which the fund would make grants and so on. That is evidence of what one might call a natural inclination of government to claw as much power into the hands of the Secretary of State as possible. No doubt all governments are strapped for cash at different points in time, and the more power they have to direct those funds in the different distributing bodies the more it can be used in effect to replace state funding. I could quite understand that if I were sitting where the Minister sits, I should be quite happy to see those powers retained in the Bill. All of that is another way of saying that, if it is possible, we should have something in the Bill on the issue of additionality. It goes to the heart of the way in which the National Lottery was established, and it would give great confidence to the different boards that they are not going to be put under undue stress by governments of whatever hue. I support the intent of the amendment.