|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): We are currently considering a range of options with English Heritage. These include using the lower floors to enhance visitors' appreciation of the house and the estate, using the upper floors for holiday lets and conferences, and opening parts of the gardens previously restricted to convalescent home use.
Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that answer. Since the Government took the decision, which is much regretted on the island, to close the convalescent home more than two years ago, nothing appears to have happened. How are the Government complying with the requirement of the Osborne Estates Acts 1902 and 1914, which state:
Dr. Howells: I do not believe that that is the law on the matter. English Heritage is undertaking external repairs to the property. That work has been delayed, and we estimate that it will be completed by December 2003.
We are talking about a facility on the Isle of Wight. Most people recovering from serious illnesses or operations want to be cared for near their home and their family, and that is where the provision is being made.
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): May I begin by expressing the shock and sadness felt, I believe, throughout the House on the tragic death of Ben Hollioake, the Surrey and England all-rounder? I would like, if I may, to send our sincere condolences to the family. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today written to the family. Many would say that this accident has robbed us of one of our brightest young talents.
In answer to the question, we shall publish tomorrow a document setting out the Government's conclusions on the report of the gambling review body. It will include proposals for comprehensive modernisation of the law on gambling in Great Britain. We shall introduce a Bill when parliamentary time permits.
Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, and I look forward to seeing him in the Chamber tomorrow when he makes an oral statement on the content of his proposals. The House will expect him to make that statement because of the enormous importance of the proposals to the gambling industry. Will he take this opportunity today to confirm to the House that his plans will safeguard the future of the jackpot machines on which so many members' clubs depend for their survival?
Mr. Caborn: There will be a debate on the document and the Bill in Government time. It is right that the document is printed tomorrow and that Members have time to reflect on the proposals. As the hon. Gentleman said, the document is a comprehensive response to the Budd report, so it would be wrong to have that discussion tomorrow. We believe that there should be a full debate in Government time, and that will be arranged.
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to jackpot machines. Many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), have campaigned very hard to retain jackpot machines in members' clubs. That has been considered very sympathetically, and we have decided to keep them because of the strong representations that have been made and because of the role that the clubs play in the social infrastructure in the areas where they operate.
Syd Rapson (Portsmouth, North): Will the Minister consider carefully the effects of the proposals on the mostly family-run seaside fairgrounds and arcades? These are places of wholesome entertainment, not gambling addiction.
Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood): Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the proposals for resort casinos contained in the report, and recognise that while they offer enormous opportunities for a town like Blackpool, some sections of the community are genuinely concerned? Will he ensure that there is full consultation on those important proposals with local communities, especially in towns such as Blackpool?
Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend knows that the issue was raised in the Budd report; the Government will state their position in their response. The gambling industry is extremely important: it employs 125,000 people, has a turnover of £7 billion, and contributes in excess of £1 billion to this country's tax revenues. It is therefore important that we get our policy right. When hon. Members have read the document published tomorrow, they will take a view and we will debate the matter in the House.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): It is good news that a full response to the Budd report is to be published tomorrow. Will the Minister confirm that as the Government's proposals develop from a response to the report and into a Bill, he will hold further consultation with the leaders of the reputable parts of that important industry, in particular the British Amusement Catering Trades Association?
Mr. Caborn: Yes. We have consulted the industry, including BACTA and many others who have a vested interest, to make sure that we deal with the gambling industry in a way that enables its potential to be realised, while ensuring that we keep the controls and restraints that have given the UK gambling industry its international credibility. We shall maintain a close working relationship and consultation with those who have a vested interest.
5. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South): If she will make a statement on the progress being made to ensure a fairer distribution of lottery funds following the introduction of the fair shares policy. 
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): Fair shares is a major initiative designed to target funding at the deprived areas that have benefited least from the lottery. The Government will continue to encourage lottery distributors to ensure that all parts of the country benefit from lottery funding.
Tessa Jowell: Fair shares is a new programme that is to start at the beginning of April. I announced it to the House two or three weeks ago. It is designed to meet a specific problemnamely, deprived areas that have received less than the average share of lottery funding. I announced a further consultation on the future of lottery
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the cardinal principles stated in the 1997 White Paper on the lottery was that it should be operated through an arm's-length procedure, free from Government interference. The lottery has now operated for several years with a surplus of several billion pounds, but that money has been tied up with red tape, with the result that worthy applicants cannot access the funds. That gives the lottery a thoroughly bad name. Will the right hon. Lady investigate and ensure that the bureaucracy and red tape binding the lottery are rapidly diminished so that applicants can get the money that they deserve?
Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman confuses several points in his question. I assume that he is referring to lottery balancesthe money held in the national lottery distribution fund on behalf of the distributors. Almost all this money is overcommitted: it awaits distribution to specific approved projects.
There are delays in getting the money out. Two weeks ago I announced to the House the objective, agreed with the lottery distributors, of ensuring that current lottery balancesin excess of £3 billionshould be reduced by one half by 2004. The distributors are signed up to that objective. I believe that it will be an important way of maintaining public confidence in the lotteryconfidence that the public's money is being well spentand that people will continue to play.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): Is it not the case that the west midlands and east midlands have been poorly treated in relation to lottery distribution? If and when the Wembley project fails next month, as it deserves to, would not a way of bridging the gap be to reallocate the project immediately, preferably to Coventry or perhaps to Birmingham? Did my right hon. Friend see the comments in the Evening Standard next week about Wembley? The Standard said:
Tessa Jowell: Let me take issue with my hon. Friend on both parts of his question. First, it is not the case that the east midlands and west midlands have done badly from the lottery. Parts of the west midlands have certainly received less than their fair share; they are among the 51 areas that will benefit from the fair shares programme. On my hon. Friend's second point, the development of the Wembley stadium is a Football Association project, funded by the lottery. It is not for Government to intervene and pull the plug or anything else on a national stadium project that we hope will succeed.
Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is right; it is important to be vigilant about reducing bureaucracy. That was one of the points in the proposals that I set out last week, and includes lottery distributors being more collaborative and working together to enable local community groups and other organisations that wish to submit bids that do not fit clearly with one distributor to do so. The awards for all scheme is a good example of that kind of collaboration.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok): Given the dispute between English Members about the site of a new football stadium, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be better if money were saved and teams were invited to play in Glasgow or Cardiff, where they would be assured of a warm welcome? The money thus saved could be spent in areas like my own, where many constituents have particular difficulty with the complexity of the forms. Ordinary working-class volunteers find it immensely difficult to fill in all the forms and jump through all the hoops, which deters many of them from making an application. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be far better not to waste that money in England but to spend it in Glasgow instead?
Tessa Jowell: I note my hon. Friend's observation. I only add that yes, of course much more can be done by the distributors to solicit applications from parts of the country that have not yet put in bids. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen), who has led a group of Members on both sides of the House in driving forward the determination to ensure that every part of the country and every community has the opportunity to benefit from the lottery.
Last week, at Southwark cathedral, the right hon. Lady made an announcement which, she stated, was extremely important; it is regrettable that a similar statement was not made to the House. In that announcement, she mentioned that lottery funds are £3.5 billion underspent. Precisely how will that be allocated? Will the fair shares policy mean that there will be fairer distribution of those funds? Can she guarantee that they will be distributed in an objective, non-partisan and apolitical way, and that a balance will be reached, as she promised the House, between urban and rural areas, as rural areas have lost out greatly in the distribution of lottery funds?
Tessa Jowell: May I try to clear up some confusion that the hon. Lady clearly has, which she also had when she spoke on behalf of her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), in the debate
I have made absolutely clear the Government's determination to bring pressure to bear on the distributors to ensure that the level of lottery balance, which I believe to be unacceptably high, is halved over the next two years.
Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South): My right hon. Friend will be aware that Hamilton receives one of the lowest amounts of lottery funding. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents, I thank her for including south Lanarkshire in the group that will be targeted under the fair shares policy. What kind of publicity will there be to ensure that local charitable organisations are given the opportunity to apply? If there is such a campaign, when will it run?
Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend raises an important point. This is a matter for the lottery distributors, but he touches on an important gap. In deprived communities particularly, where there are not large numbers of voluntary organisations and active civic organisations, there is often simply not enough awareness of how the lottery works, how it can be accessed and what it can do. It is that information gap that we need to overcome. That will in turn ensure that our objective of every community benefiting from the lottery will be achieved.