National Lottery Bill

moved Amendment No. 58:"After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—" ““REPORT OF INTERNATIONAL EXPENDITURE    In section 34 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c. 39) (annual reports by distributing bodies other than Millennium Commission) after subsection (2) insert— ““(2A)   The report shall set out any awards made during that year for projects outside the United Kingdom.”””” The noble Viscount said: The amendment concerns expenditure by distributing bodies outside this country. We have always believed that the lottery should be primarily for this country, for British citizens, and projects that affect British citizens wherever they may be. That has largely been the case, but when I looked at what has happened, it proved difficult to work out, because the Community Fund gave large sums of money to international projects. One can look at the fund’s website and discover that some of those donations were made under its international grants programme; but one cannot find many of those because they are defined as being made either under a local authority category or under a different assessment office that has assessed many projects both in this country and abroad—thereby not coming under the international grants programme. When I asked the Community Fund and the Big Lottery Fund for exactly what grants they had made, I received conflicting answers. I was concerned at that, because it should be clear and while we support the need for an international programme of grants from the lottery, we would like to know how much has been given. The reason for my amendment moves on from that. Considering the powers that the Secretary of State is given in the Bill, Clause 7, for example, regarding National Lottery Distribution Fund apportionment, says nothing about international grants. It mentions Wales, Northern Ireland, health, education and so on, but international grants are not mentioned. I do not know whether the Government will include in directions a sum that should be allocated to international projects. Will the lottery funds consider that they could do that anyway, without directions? Will they receive any guidance on that? I understand that the Big Lottery Fund will announce shortly that it will have an international grants programme of up to £60 million, plus £12 million for long-term reconstruction initiatives in areas affected by the tsunami, which we support. But it is not clear whether such sums will be an annual expenditure, or whether that figure will change. What is the Government’s view? They have created the Big Lottery Fund, which will receive 50 per cent of lottery funding and will look to the Government for guidance. That will include whatever the Minister says in this House. So it would be useful if the Government would say how they envisage the international grants programme working alongside domestic programmes. What emphasis should the Big Lottery Fund place on that and will there be directions? Will the other distributing bodies that, I admit, I have not focussed on, have power to make international grants? Originally, it was the Community Fund that made international grants, but that has been subsumed into the Big Lottery Fund. The intention of the amendment is to obtain some clarity. I understand the Government’s thinking, and the Minister should reassure us that when the Big Lottery Fund reports, it must state which geographical areas and what type of projects have received international grants. I beg to move.