National Lottery Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for the way in which he presented this amendment—although it is expressed in similar terms to the amendment that we had in Committee and the debate that we had then. I appreciate that he raises some interesting questions about the way devolution is reflected in the plans for the Big Lottery Fund, about the dynamics of the board and about the way in which grants will be distributed. I am also grateful to my noble friend Baroness Pitkeathley for identifying to him some of the difficulties which might occur if his amendment were to become part of the Bill. I listened to the noble Lord’s arguments carefully but I have not changed my position, which I have no doubt that he will regret. The Bill currently provides for 12 board members, four of whom are appointed to represent the interests of parts of the United Kingdom. Those representatives will have an important part to play in chairing committees that will oversee devolved expenditure in the four parts of the United Kingdom. The National Lottery is, of course, a reserved matter; however, the areas covered by the Big Lottery Fund good causes—health, education, the environment and charities—have all been devolved. We have reflected that in the Bill. By creating the concept of devolved expenditure and providing for the committees to oversee spending, it ensures that decisions will be taken by those best placed to make them. As I said in Committee, devolution to the regions of England is a rather different matter. It raises the difficulties to which my noble friend Baroness Pitkeathley gave voice. Desirable as it might be for a whole host of reasons—and nobody is better equipped to identify them than the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, or to make the case for them with his usual forceful clarity—there is no statutory framework as there is with devolution to the countries of the UK. He will recognise that factor and, because of it, there is no specific provision within the Bill to reflect it. We believe that decisions on how best to ensure that there is an English regional dimension to its work are best made by the Big Lottery Fund itself. Why should the Government force a particular model on the fund? How would that sit with the concerns expressed today, and even more intensely in Committee, about the overall degree of government control of the lottery? I have concerns about increasing the size of the Big Lottery Fund board so drastically. It is a fairly substantial change that noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is recommending. The fund needs a UK board that is small and focused enough to provide a real strategic focus to its work. Having nine English regional appointees, as well as the four national-interest appointees, would risk creating a sort of mini-parliament rather than a coherent board. When the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, spoke equally forcefully in Committee, he made the point that the Community Fund had English regional committees, whereas the New Opportunities Fund did not. He reiterated that point today. He saw that as evidence of a New Opportunities Fund takeover. I do not accept that at all. The Community Fund had no statutory duty to set up English regional committees; it chose to do so as the most effective way to operate. It is entirely open to the Big Lottery Fund to act similarly. We believe that that is a decision for the fund itself; it is not a decision for the Government to make and to put on the face of the Bill. The Big Lottery Fund, of course, will operate in a somewhat different way from the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund. Sometimes the focus will be at national strategic level and sometimes at regional or even local level. Against that background, I understand that the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund, operating as the Big Lottery Fund, have decided against general English regional committees. They are in that position at present. The fund has said that it will have English regional representation on the national committees for individual funding programmes where that is appropriate. For example, its Reaching Communities programme will have representatives from each of the nine English regions because it is seeking to be in close contact with the regions. That will allow for regional perspectives to be brought into the decision-making process. The noble Lord will recognise that decisions are being taken that increase the regional dimension. The fund will also have a regional office in each of the English regions, whose primary role will be outreach work. The offices will spend time gathering regional intelligence, which will be fed into the assessment process. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that the regional dimension is not being ignored. Where appropriate, arrangements will be made. We should leave the Big Lottery Fund to take up the decisions as appropriate, which has been the case in the past, but we cannot agree that we should put on the face of the Bill a rigid structure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, indicated, would in his terms advance the regional dimension, but might be crucially at the cost of the effectiveness of the overall strategic role which the fund has to fulfil. Of course, we have met the devolution dimension as regards the four countries of the United Kingdom. That is as far as we can reasonably be expected to go in legislation. I hope the noble Lord will consider that an adequate reply.