National Lottery Bill

I rise briefly to endorse the words of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and who performed a magnificent role in her task as the leader of one of the lottery boards. She clearly identified the central difficulty of this discussion, because the principle of additionality is sensible and vital. It rests on the concept that what lottery boards spend should not replace government spending, but should add to it. That is the heart of the principle, but the moment you go beyond the heart and you try to put it in black and white into a piece of legislation, it becomes much more difficult. I would defend to the hilt the fact that the Government’s spending from the Exchequer on the arts, sport and heritage are core government responsibilities. I would defend to the hilt the fact that they should be and, I hope, always will be, part of the usual expenditure of government. But we have happily accepted that lottery boards’ spending on arts, sport and heritage is fulfilling completely the additionality principle. I would argue that exactly the same point applies to the activities to be supported by the Big Lottery Fund. Exactly the same point applied to the activities and facilities that were supported by the New Opportunities Fund. It is very difficult to tie in place by some neat definition the broad principle that we endorse on all sides of this House. The Government have broadly got it right in this legislation. I would be sad if in searching for something even better, we actually to make it worse, and I fear that that is what we might be in danger of doing if we tried to tie that too precisely with the wording proposed in the amendment. The principle is right. I look forward to hearing the Government’s ringing endorsement of the principle and ensure that the people they appoint to run the lottery boards understand the importance of that principle, too. Let us not try to make the best the enemy of the good.