| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Helen Jones (Warrington, North): May I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that more money will go to health and education projects, and tell him that that will be particularly welcome to people in the Orford ward of my constituency--who applied to the national lottery for money to establish a one-stop shop, including health projects, and were turned down despite being in one of the borough's most needy areas? In the light of that example, will he provide more details of how such projects will be able to apply for such grants?
Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks, and I can tell her that an application from that particular area would be extremely welcome to the New Opportunities Fund, as and when it is established in our proposed legislation.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): In his remarks, the Secretary of State drew attention to what he described as the lack of a clear overall strategy. Does he not accept, however, that his White Paper--far from providing a clear overall strategy--is endorsing the thinking of Tom Lehrer that, "You can get
away with it by sprinkling a little bit over each part of the banana split"? It seems remarkable for him to say it is not the province of the Treasury and the taxpayer to deal with medical matters that will be covered by the proposals in his White Paper. Is it not strange that he boasts that preventive medicine is to be one of the new beneficiaries of his proposals, and that the new methods of teaching and encouraging teacher training are regarded as not suitable to be paid for by taxpayers and the Treasury? What limit will he put on the erosion of the national lottery by his Cabinet colleagues, who no doubt all have other good causes for which they cannot find taxpayers' money?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he still regards himself as the custodian of culture, the media and sport, because the White Paper certainly contains no awareness of the fact that the lottery's problem has been the lack of take-up by existing good causes, with less than a quarter of the money held for them being distributed to them? Surely, the money held should be turned to good account and be used, not just spread ever more thinly.
Mr. Smith:
The lack of take-up is exactly one of the problems we seek to address in chapter 2 of the White Paper on reforming the existing distribution of lottery funds. It is precisely the lack of a clear overall strategy and the absence of power for lottery distributors to be proactive--at the moment, they have to sit and wait for applications to come in--that have led to the uneven geographical distribution and, in many cases, to the lack of ability to tackle real problems in deprived areas as we would wish.
The point about the health and education projects is precisely that they are not part of the core health and education services which, rightly, have to be a continuing part of the responsibility that we all bear as taxpayers.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
On the question of Camelot making about £2 million a week profit, will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the proposal for a non-profit scheme will hold fast? However, may I enter a caveat? I keep hearing Branson's name--Mr. Goody Two Shoes. There is something about that fellow that I just cannot cling to. He seems to have his finger in every pie, and I would not trust him with the lottery, either--he would be making some money for himself if he got hold of it.
Mr. Smith:
I refer my hon. Friend to page 28 of the White Paper where we set out precisely what we propose and invite public comment on such issues. Richard Branson, Camelot or anyone else would be very welcome to apply post-2001 to run the lottery, provided they do so in accordance with the framework that we will put in place in the legislation later this year.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury):
Of course the Secretary of State is right to review the way the lottery works--that was part of the original Act--but is he aware that not one of the Labour warriors who fought the Bill in Standing Committee is present today? Those who fought on the principle of additionality day after day in Standing Committee are not here--they are no doubt ashamed to see that the Government have been rolled over by the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman speaks fondly of people's aspirations for the lottery, but is he aware--if he
Finally, does the Secretary of State agree that, apart from the Treasury, the only winners will be Vernons, Zetters and Littlewoods? Good luck to them, but it is back to those days.
Mr. Smith:
The winners will be the British people. They said to us during the election campaign and afterwards that they want part of the money that they spend on their lottery tickets to go to good causes in health, education and the environment. That is what the White Paper proposes.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent document. The essential element of the lottery is randomness. Would it not be sensible to introduce a random element into the way in which the money is paid out, as well as the way in which it is paid in? I speak for an area that has had a lousy distribution of lottery proceeds. When the qualifying criteria are met, the bids are in and the priorities are determined, we could have a lottery to decide on the winners and losers. Instead of getting infusions of largesse from anonymous distribution committees, local communities would see the intervention of Lady Luck and would get as much excitement from the moment of distribution as from the moment of paying in.
Mr. Smith:
Normally, I agree with my hon. Friend, but I do not follow him entirely in his argument today. One of the problems with lottery money distribution at the moment is that it tends to be random, in response to the applications that happen to have been submitted. We believe that a more strategic view can and should be taken by the distributing bodies. That is why we have proposed changes.
Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire):
The Secretary of State will be aware that the lower the operator's percentage, the more money there is for good causes. Camelot, which is based in my constituency, has proved that by securing hundreds of millions of pounds more for good causes than there would have been if another licensee had been selected, particularly one that was not for profit. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants a not-for-profit operator. What will he do if, when the licence is up for renewal, a for-profit operator offers the lowest operating percentage? What would win--Labour dogma or good causes?
Mr. Smith:
The key principle has to be to maximise the fund for the good causes. That is why we set out in the White Paper how we believe that the present arrangements can be improved on.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston):
I am delighted that NESTA funds will be available for talented young people. Will young creative artists in my constituency, particularly dancers, who have been unable to get further education funds so far, benefit from the proposals?
Mr. Smith:
A scheme was put in place by the previous Government to give some assistance to dance and drama
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley (South-West Surrey):
The right hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to all those in the distributing bodies and elsewhere who have made such a success of the lottery. Is he aware, however, that almost every lottery in other countries is the responsibility of the Finance Department? Earlier today, the right hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of resisting good advice from the Treasury on, for example, the privatisation of Channel 4. Today, he has not resisted the Treasury's advice. The additionality principle is breached, the jackpot winners are the Treasury and the successful lottery that we have known will be seriously damaged by the White Paper.
Mr. Smith:
The additionality principle has not been breached.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
I hope that the moves on health, education and the environment mean that there will be a fairer distribution of lottery funds, because those elements are important throughout society and need to be responded to. Under the current arrangements, not a single one of the 41 grants from lottery funds for sport that have been provided so far in Derbyshire has been given to north-east Derbyshire or Chesterfield. That is an unfair arrangement. I am pleased that measures are proposed in the White Paper that will begin to tackle that problem.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |