National Lottery Bill

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. These amendments are all concerned with the new arrangements for the Big Lottery Fund to work as an agent distributing money for other public bodies, government or private foundations. The suggestion for this came from the fund itself, which believes that such a provision will make things easier for applicants, particularly those in the voluntary and community sector. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, invites me into a major debate on its relationship with the voluntary and community sector and we shall spend a fair amount of time today on a number of amendments on this issue. He will know from my letter that I am concerned to establish—I hope it will be on the record of today’s debate in Hansard—exactly what we intend in these terms, but that is for a later amendment. The fund believes that the provision will make it easier for applicants in that sector who would need to apply only once instead of several times for money for the same project. The fund has been approached in the past to use the systems already in place to get things going quickly. For example, before devolution, the old Scottish Office asked the Community Fund to run its then small grants schemes. The Big Lottery Fund has had a number of requests to handle various types of European funding. The Home Office has also made general inquiries as to whether the fund could handle some grant making on behalf of government—for example, some of the current infrastructure funds for the voluntary and community sector. The Carnegie Trust was interested in passing funding for rural projects to the Community Fund for distribution in an agreed scheme with it. Under the existing legislation, neither the Community Fund nor the New Opportunities Fund has power to distribute other people’s money. Therefore, these opportunities to join-up the funding stream for the benefit of applicants were missed. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, would restrict the value of non-lottery business for the Big Lottery Fund to no more than the value of prescribed expenditure. I do not believe that the new powers need to be prescribed in this way. It would limit the potential to streamline and simplify a range of funding and limit further development, especially in the skills and knowledge which can only be to the benefit of the recipients. Why limit the potential reductions in the cost of distribution and grant management through economies of scale which otherwise would flow? We do not expect distributing non-lottery funds to become a major function of the fund—of course not. We all know what the key functions of the fund are and no one wants to see the fund distracted from its main lottery functions. But, in trying to set limits, there is a danger that we may inadvertently prevent the Big Lottery Fund from being able to exploit good opportunities. The fund must have the flexibility to get involved where it thinks it can add value and I hope that noble Lords will recognise the value of the Big Lottery Fund in those terms. The same argument applies to the more principled position put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I do not see the question of being involved with others as a major activity of the fund. It is not its job to distribute non-lottery money to statutory bodies, but why ban it? Why ban the fund from distributing non-lottery money to profit-making bodies, which might include social enterprises that fit very much into the framework of the work that the Big Lottery Fund is expected to do? We do not believe that the powers to handle non-lottery funds should be removed, but we recognise that they have to be kept in proportion. My response to the initial argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is that this is not about co-funding or joint funding but about allowing the Big Lottery Fund to handle non-lottery funds. Such funds may be distributed entirely separately from any lottery funds. There is no connection with additionality. It is merely a recognition that the Big Lottery Fund, with its resources and expertise, on occasions, can provide helpful streaming possibilities for other funds. It would not be right to restrict this by legislation so that valuable opportunities are missed to the disadvantage of the recipients of Big Lottery Fund money. On that basis, I hope the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.