National Lottery Bill

I recall 1993 Bill and the debates that we had on additionality in the Commons, including the Opposition’s attacks mounted by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, as he is now and who has temporarily left his place. The Opposition’s pressure was considerable and totally proper. One of the outcomes was that after the Bill become law there was major emphasis on capital projects by the various distributors, because no one could have suggested that they were not additional, given that they had not previously existed. There was an example of British genius, particularly the genius of Lord Rothschild, the then chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It occurred to him that as Secretary of State I was also the chairman of the Millennium Commission, which was one of the distributors. He asked me quietly, ““Would it be helpful if I gave a dinner for the chairmen of all the distributors, to which you would come in your capacity as chairman of the Millennium Commission, so that we could have an informal discussion on the kind of directions and guidance it would be helpful for the Secretary of State to give all of us, including me?””. That occurred, and—this is a totally egotistical remark—my appreciation of Lord Rothschild in that regard was that it enabled us, in the directions and guidance, to emphasise architecture as something the distributors should emphasise in decisions relating to the various applicants. That was an example of British genius, for the coincidence of resources with the reputation of British architecture in that era meant that we could reinforce a category of artists who, while not pre-eminent in the world, were widely spread throughout the world. Regarding the problem of prescription, which occupied us earlier and which underlies this issue, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who led the Department for Culture, Media and Sport during the evolution of the Labour Government’s policies on these matters, of a magical moment when he was due to make a Statement on the future of the National Lottery later that afternoon. By coincidence, perhaps by convenient coincidence, DCMS Questions were being asked at 2.30 pm. I took the liberty of asking his Minister of State, Mr Tom Clarke, to remind the House of the Government’s current definition of additionality. Mr Clarke fell back on saying that if I did not know, the Secretary of State would be letting us know later in the afternoon. But it suggested that his mastery of the policy at that moment was not absolutely overwhelming. This is an immensely worthwhile debate and I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply. I am conscious of the dinner hour and shall sit down shortly, but I will ask again the paving question that I asked on Amendment No. 2. When, particularly in the context of the Big Lottery Fund, it is determined whether additionality is being practised or offended against, does the primary responsibility lie with the Secretary of State in the prescriptions that he gives or with the chairman of the distributor body in carrying out its part of the equation?