National Lottery Bill

moved Amendment No. 27:"Page 9, line 13, leave out ““comply with”” and insert ““take account of””" The noble Viscount said: Prescription, which we have debated previously, is a big issue which gives us cause for alarm. The Government have said that the Bill does not give the Secretary of State increased power over distributing bodies. Indeed, they have said that the Big Lottery Fund is no more prescriptive than before because it follows the increased prescription that applies to the New Opportunities Fund. But it is certainly more prescriptive than any of the original distributing bodies. The original distributors, including the Community Fund, have to,"““comply with directions on matters to be taken account of””," when distributing lottery funds and ““comply with directions”” relating to their management, accounting and delegation of powers. If the Secretary of State said they should consider the relative wealth of the community when making grants, they would have to include this as one of their criteria. When the New Opportunities Fund was set up, the level of prescription was increased. It had to ““comply with directions”” from the Secretary of State on all matters, including the distribution of grants, meaning that the Secretary of State had increased powers and could give any direction he wanted. The Minister said on a previous amendment that the Government were going to set things out at the highest level when it came to dealing with the Big Lottery Fund, and I accept his reassurances, but what has happened in the past concerns me. I have a copy of the directions that were given to the New Opportunities Fund, and I am sure that the Minister has a copy too. Those directions go way beyond what one might call the highest level. The section covering young people and sport in schools states in paragraph 4.4:"““The Fund shall commit a total of £750.75 million to projects falling within this initiative. Within this figure up to £50 million should be committed to building or refurbishing outdoor adventure facilities””." Paragraph 5.2 on opportunities and activities for young people says that the fund shall commit a total of £44 million and describes how that should be allocated. Paragraph 6.3 on the section to reduce the burden of coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer says:"““The Fund shall commit a total of £213.5 million to projects falling within this initiative””." We can see that in the past, the directions have been very prescriptive. They have allocated money and have said what it should be spent on. A list in the directions shows exactly how the money allocated to reducing coronary heart disease should be spent. The directions also cover palliative care and childcare. The directions show that the Government have been exact about what they wanted the New Opportunities Fund to do. When one looks closely at a Written Answer by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to a Question asked by my noble friend Lord Howe, we see that since 2001 the Big Lottery Fund programme has allocated,"““£125 million to fund 90 additional and replacement laboratories””.—[Official Report, 13/3/06; WA 193.]" Those are catheter cardiac laboratories. In earlier debates, we had a long discussion about whether that should be done because it was additional in areas where there might be no funding for these projects. But some of the areas that have been funded are rather wealthy in terms of local government expenditure—they are all over England, including Surrey and Sussex and places such as that. When you look at the lists of those waiting for angiograms for coronary heart disease, which are included in the Written Answer, you can see that the waiting lists bear no relation to where the money was spent. It is interesting that the shortest waiting list is in County Durham and Tees Valley—the Prime Minister’s county. I am not sure why that is. The longest is in Surrey and Sussex. What does one learn from that? There is no such thing as the north-south divide when it comes to these things. We are concerned about the whole of Clause 14—the directions—because the evidence is there. In the past, the Government have been prescriptive. They are now going to be more prescriptive over a larger sum of money, which gives us concern. It goes back to all the arguments that we had on additionality, which I do not wish to go into this evening because we have had them. However, I want a much clearer understanding from the Government of how they intend to use the power of the directions as set out. The Minister says that they going to be used at the highest level but, frankly, experience has shown that in the past that has not been the case. If the Government have changed their mind, fine, let us hear about that. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.