Payments into the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund etc. Order 2007

My Lords, I have raised more than once in your Lordships’ House the problems that the Heritage Lottery Fund has been facing as a result of the Olympics and I shall speak briefly on that issue today. I am grateful for what the Minister said and for the reassurances that no more than the expected £161.2 million will be taken from the lottery. However, will he say how the HLF will fund any shortfall or loss of revenue through reduced sales of non-Olympic lottery games? Will that be a problem for the HLF or will the Government help? The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has tabled a useful amendment, but I question one thing that he said. He said that the amount of money taken from the Heritage Lottery Fund would have a potential impact on projects. I can tell him that it has already had a definite impact on projects. There is no question but that in Scotland potentially very good projects have been withdrawn as a result of the money that has been allocated to the Olympics and the consequent reduction in the budget. Of course the Olympics must be a success. Now that we have them, it is the duty of us all to make certain that they are a success. However, they must be a success throughout the country, not just a success for east London. I fear that, at the end of the day, London will be the only place to benefit from the Olympics. My noble friend Lord Glentoran said that the lottery is a slush fund for the Government. That is a pretty good statement of the use of the lottery. We are right to question how lottery moneys are allocated. I certainly would like to have a good debate about how the Heritage Lottery Fund works because I agree with some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, made about the heritage lottery and how the funds could be allocated. He said that a large percentage of heritage fund projects would go ahead in some form without a government grant. How many of those might have involved local authorities rather than private individuals and small charities, which could actually benefit hugely from a better allocation of the Heritage Lottery Fund? The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, also mentioned the contingency fund. We see in the Evening Standard today that the aquatics centre bill has trebled to £210 million. What happens when the contingency fund is exceeded? What agreement do the Government have with the parties, the mayor and the Heritage Lottery Fund? Is the memorandum that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned clear on this point? If raw material costs continue to shoot up and we have this downturn in the economy and the contingency fund is exceeded, who is going to pick up that bill? My last point is to chide the Minister. On 17 January I posed to him two questions which he studiously ignored when he came to sum up. I will pose them again in the hope that this time he does not studiously ignore them: "““First, will any repayment to the lottery come back with interest attached?””." You are taking a large chunk of money away from the lottery. If all you do is return that same amount, given inflation it will be a decrease in money, so I hope that there will be interest attached. My other question was: "““Secondly, would the Government consider allowing the National Lottery Fund to have an overdraft account guaranteed by the Government””,—[Official Report, 17/1/08; col. 1450.]" up to the total amount the Government want? Instead of having to rely on land sales at some date in the future—the data seem unclear as to when that money is going to be repaid to the Heritage Lottery Fund—and in view of the wording of the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, this could be one way that the Government could mitigate some of the very serious effect that has been felt throughout the country by the reduction to the Heritage Lottery Fund, by letting this contribution be handled in a different way.