National Lottery Bill

moved Amendment No. 16:"Page 7, line 25, leave out ““Big”” and insert ““Charitable””" The noble Viscount said: I thought it more appropriate to wait to speak to this amendment because it relates to a rather different subject from Amendment No. 15. It does not attempt to challenge the 50 per cent—although I dislike it, having supported my noble friend’s previous amendment. In passing—and before I launch into my reason for wanting to change the name of ““Big””—I hope the Minister is not suggesting in his analysis of ““consultation”” that the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Art Fund and the Sports Fund make no contribution either to health or education. The Big Lottery Fund has been operating since June 2004, and it is not clear how it got its name. Was it the invention of a senior civil servant on his way home, or the expensive creation of some consultant? Either way, it is an unhappy choice, with shades of James Bond and Big Brother; Mr. Big rules OK? On Second Reading, the Minister said that it was wrong to read proposed new Section 36D as an invitation to ““Big”” to tell its smaller distributor confederates how to behave. How does he plan to control this possibility? Four chief executives enter the room for a monthly meeting: one is Mr. Big, a 50 per cent man, and the others are each 16.66 per cent. In other circumstances, this situation would lead to indictable discrimination. Interpreting government policy as people will, it is asking too much of human nature to expect that ““Big”” will not accept the Secretary of State’s approved strategy, which is that ““Big”” should have a leadership role, clearly expressed in the decision document of July 2003, at paragraphs 3.7 to 3.23. In three pages, it is made absolutely clear that ““Big”” is to be the leader. We should change the unincorporated name of ““Big””—it is not too late, as it does not exist as a legal entity—to ““Charitable””. That would return it to its roots and be no bar to its grant giving, given the clarification intended by Clause 19. A fund with ““Charitable”” in its name is likely to be far less bossy than ““Big””. I beg to move.