National Lottery Bill

My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lords who have pressed this amendment have addressed the issue. I agree that there is not a great deal between us. We have agreed that additionality should, in principle, be reported on. It will be recognised, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley so eloquently made clear, that the lottery distributors are prepared to ensure that they comment on this issue in their annual reports. I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, have produced an amendment without some of the more obvious parts to which I objected last time, particularly the word ““core”” in relation to government expenditure. Therefore I am much closer to them in the terms of the amendment. I recognise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, makes. He is right to identify that there is not a great deal at stake at this present time, but it is still the case that we would be putting into the Bill a requirement to report. We continue to remain of the view that it is inappropriate to include a requirement for distributors to report on the amount of lottery funding that they award to not-for-profit bodies. The issue of not-for-profit is quite difficult, and it will not be easy for distributors to define it. For example, there is the problem of any grants that are made to social enterprises, because these often make profits but reinvest them in their services. Our policy directions to the other distributors all include that they should take into account the need to ensure that money is distributed for projects which promote public good or promote charitable purposes and which are not intended primarily for private gain. So we still think that this amendment has weaknesses, and we cannot accept it. With the existing measures that we have in place, to which my noble friend accurately referred, it is not necessary. But I recognise that the noble Lord feels so strongly about what I think is a marginal difference between us that he might press the matter. I do not think that that is necessary. If he will give me time to look at the matter further before Third Reading we shall do so. I cannot give him the assurance that I shall accept an amendment constructed in his terms, but we shall look at it and see if we can come out with a formula that bridges what I think is regarded in the House as a fairly narrow gap between the Government’s position and his.