National Lottery Bill

moved Amendment No. 15:"After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—" ““APPORTIONMENT OF MONEY IN DISTRIBUTION FUND    In section 22 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c. 39) (apportionment of money in Distribution Fund) for subsection (3) substitute— ““(3)   Of the balance— (a)   25 per cent shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with the arts, (b)   25 per cent shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with sport, (c)   25 per cent shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with the national heritage, (d)   25 per cent shall be allocated for charitable expenditure, including, in each case, for establishing or contributing to endowments in connection with such expenditure.”””” The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak to a whole draft of amendments that are consequential on it—most of which I do not understand, but I shall speak to the first one. In an earlier debate when talking about the Big Lottery Fund, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that it was an apple cart that he did not want to overturn. I think that the apple cart is particularly overloaded and therefore I find it almost irresistible not to try to overturn it—there are sound reasons for doing so. Perhaps I may take Members of the Committee back to the start of the National Lottery. Noble Lords will remember that there were originally five bodies—four dealing with the arts, sport, heritage and charities, plus the Millennium Commission. Now we have no Millennium Commission. If we managed to put the lottery back as it was, which I think would be far simpler and easier—I recognise that I may be a rather lone voice in this argument this evening; nevertheless, I intend to press it—that would have a significant effect on the three distributing bodies. For example, under the current estimated funding of good causes, the Big Lottery Fund will get about £690 million a year, heritage will get £230 million, and sports and the arts will receive about the same. Under my amendment, charities would get £345 million and heritage, sports and the arts would also get £345 million. So heritage, sports and the arts would get substantially increased funding, as they do now—more than £100 million more. I think that that would be a good thing. It would put the lottery back to what it was. We know that the Government changed the lottery and brought in the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund but that, in effect, they did not work as they should have done. As a result, the Government have come forward with the Big Lottery Fund. We have heard a lot about that. The biggest problem is that, because it is so large, the Government feel that they will have to have additional powers to enable them to prescribe very much what it does and how it acts. If we had the four original distributing bodies, none of that would be necessary. We would not need the debates on additionality. All of that would probably go because each of the four bodies would be narrowly focused and therefore those issues would not exist, which would be for the best. I accept that my amendment would entirely change the Government’s policy on the lottery and I accept that the Minister will be robust in his defence of the Big Lottery Fund. That is fine, but I cannot let this issue go by without saying that we think that the Government have got it fundamentally wrong. It has enabled all these issues of additionality to come up, which they should not have done, and that has been dangerous for the lottery. On average, there has been a very small rise in the total amount that distributing bodies have been able to give away over the past five or six years. The lottery was brought into disrepute—that might be too harsh a word, but the public were put off certain sections of it. It is only now that turnover is beginning to increase. That was not Camelot’s fault; sadly, it was due to the public’s perception of how the lottery was being managed. If one part of the distributing bodies does something, it affects all the other parts. My amendments would put back the lottery as it was. I know that the Minister will not accept them but I should like him to accept the principle. Perhaps I may turn to one part of that. If the amendments were accepted, charities would receive about £350 million a year because they would get 25 per cent of the funding—more than they have ever had before. The largest amount that they received under the Millennium Commission was 20 per cent. That would be a substantial increase. Can the noble Lord give me a commitment that under the Big Lottery Fund charities will receive an equivalent amount of funding? I shall be interested to hear his reply. I beg to move.