Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 53: 53: Clause 15, page 7, line 33, leave out ““Big Lottery Fund”” and insert ““distributing bodies specified in section 23 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c. 39) (the distributing bodies)”” The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Astor. The amendment is also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. The amendments in this group seek to pin down Her Majesty’s Government on one issue—that is, the effect of the lottery fund raid, on behalf of the Olympics, on the original beneficiaries of the lottery money, and the use of dormant account money to replace those funds to only one of the distributors. It is a wonderful coincidence that, soon after the transfer of £425 million from the Big Lottery Fund in March, we now have a Bill which will ensure that an estimated £400 million to £500 million will be added to the Big Lottery Fund’s coffers. It is fortunate for the Big Lottery Fund that many outside opinions consider this initial estimation by the Government of the amount of money that will be gathered in as a result of the Bill to be rather on the low side. The other lottery distributors are not as fortunate as the Big Lottery Fund and will not benefit from this windfall. It is possible that their boards are not quite so friendly with the Government and so have been unable to lobby effectively for the return of their lost millions. I am sure that the Minister will claim that the other lottery distributors are not so well placed to distribute money to organisations promoting the three favoured recipients. That is probably true; it is only the Big Lottery Fund that has such a wide remit, and, frankly, such unclear purposes that it can spend the money in a way that will complement government spending so conveniently. However, there is a later amendment in my name that will go further on additionality, on which the Minister said he had such robust views, so I shall save some of my remarks for then. On the first day in Committee, in response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the Minister said that, "““the Big Lottery Fund will ring fence these funds and keep them separate from all its other operations. Therefore, there is no question of a flow-across to the Olympics or any other worthwhile project that may exist””.— [Official Report, 10/12/07; col. GC 8.]" Can the Minister give us an assurance that none of this money will be given by the Big Lottery Fund to projects that would or could have received lottery funding prior to the raid this year? If he cannot, will he admit that dormant accounts are essentially being used to fund the Olympics, via the circuitous route of what is meant to be an independent body—the Big Lottery Fund? Of course, he cannot. Not only does the Big Lottery Fund regularly give lottery money to local authorities, publicly funded schools, NHS-funded hospitals and other responsibilities of our public sector, it will clearly continue this practice with the dormant account money. Large sections of this Bill are lifted directly from the National Lottery Act 2006. Most of Clause 15, large amounts of Clause 16 and most of Clause 21, not to mention Schedule 3, are identical and there is much more that is very similar—so much for this money being entirely separate from lottery money. I can think of numerous ways that the sports, arts and heritage distributor funds could spend this money in line with the Government’s three concerns—particularly those of young people. Does the Minister really believe that the millions of pounds taken from the sport distributors to spend on the Olympics will benefit young people more than the grassroots recipients of the money originally? I declare an interest as chairman of the National Playing Fields Association. Does the Minister not think that at least some of the dormant account money could be well spent on sport facilities and opportunities for young people? Or do the Government intend that the Big Lottery Fund should extend its remit even wider into areas that are presently served by other bodies, such as Sport England and various other sporting organisations? I beg to move.