---

Archaeology

2. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): What assessment she has made of the all-party archaeology group's report on the state of archaeology in the United Kingdom. [174892]

The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): The Government welcome the all-party archaeology group's report. Its recommendations will form a useful contribution to the ongoing review of heritage protection.

Tim Loughton : I welcome the Minister's comments, but her predecessor undertook to give a formal response to the report, and it has been out since January 2003. May I bring to her attention two points in it? First, the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel, which was set up in 2000, has been successful in its recommendations. The trouble is that only three of those 16 recommendations have so far been put into practice, and she is now recommending winding it up. Will she reconsider that? On the portable antiquities scheme, will she agree to accept an all-party delegation of those of us who are concerned that the Government should take the scheme fully under their wing after the funding ends in 2006? It has been so successful, as I saw in my area in Sussex last Friday, that it is in danger of being swamped as a result, and the Government need to take it under their wing and fund it properly after 2006.

Estelle Morris: I take the point about the report having been published in January last year. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Media and Heritage met the all-party group last October—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—and I will pass the hon. Gentleman's comments to him.

I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for what the portable antiquities scheme has achieved, but all I can say now is that the funding is secure for another one or two years. Obviously we cannot make an announcement until we have the results of our spending review bid, but I hope very much that the Government will be able to bear the costs. The Department has put in £1.5 million so far. I shall say no more for the moment, but I will probably report in the autumn.
 
24 May 2004 : Column 1289
 

I shall shortly meet the chairman of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel. I want to discuss with him what will happen following representations he has made to me. Perhaps I shall have further news after that meeting.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (Lab): Are the Government giving a friendly response to recommendation 7 on the framework and funding of the portable antiquities scheme?

Estelle Morris: I personally am giving it an exceptionally friendly response. The problem is persuading other Ministers to give a more friendly response to it than to other bids.

The £1.5 million invested by the Department is not a huge amount, but it has achieved a great deal. There were 87,000 finds last year, and 20,000 people are now taking part in the activity, of whom 4,000 are children. I think it would be a shame if the scheme did not continue. Perhaps my words will fall on favourable ears.

All I can say now is that the bid is there and the intention is to continue the funding. It would be silly to say more than I have dared to say thus far without knowing exactly what will happen to our settlement in the next spending review. More risk than that I am not about to take.

National Lottery

3. Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): How much is unallocated in the national lottery distribution fund. [174893]

The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): The NLDF holds about £2.65 billion, of which less than 4 per cent. is unallocated. Forward commitments made by lottery distributors total £3.6 billion, making the fund 32 per cent. over-committed.

Mr. Swire : That is a welcome move in the right direction, but it still fails to meet the figures planned by the Government as long ago as 2002. As a matter of principle, however, is it not iniquitous that so much money can still be held centrally when up and down the country there are good causes, some of them time-limited? In my constituency the Weavers' Tales celebrate 250 years of carpet-making in Axminster, while the Norman Lockyer observatory in Sidmouth is crying out for money to improve access. Everywhere in the country are good causes for which local people want funds that currently sit invested and centrally held. Can the Secretary of State not give the Heritage Lottery Fund and other distribution bodies clearer guidelines so that the money can be given back to those from whom it originally came?

Estelle Morris: The Secretary of State has done exactly that. All lottery distributors receive guidance on not holding back too much in reserve. We should not give the impression that money that is waiting to be spent sits in the coffers owing to inefficiency. This is about managing cash flow as much as anything else. As I said in my answer, the fund is 32 per cent. over-committed. In reducing the reserves, we want to ensure
 
24 May 2004 : Column 1290
 
that we spend what we can reasonably spend this year, and not make worthwhile projects throughout the country wait until next year or the year after.

The National Audit Office is currently considering what balance it is appropriate for distributors to hold. I think that its report, which will appear in the next few months, will give us extra ammunition in making sure that the distributors do not retain funds centrally. I should put on record, however, that they are held by the distributors and not by Government.

Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North) (Lab): Can the Minister assure me that any surplus funds will be spent on the arts—on sport rather than the arts, and will not be wasted on schemes for the London lobbies?

Estelle Morris: I much preferred my hon. Friend's initial comment; indeed, perhaps I should ask you to introduce a new rule, Mr. Speaker, stating "no corrections allowed". At the moment, the distributors themselves keep the money, and the real issue is where the interest on funds that are held is spent. There is a formula for the giving of lottery money to distributors, and currently there is almost an incentive for them to hold on to the reserves, given that they also keep the interest. As my hon. Friend will know from the relevant document, we intend to ensure that that interest is shared equally among all the funds. If I had time, I would list the many benefits of giving such money to the arts—not just for luvvies, but for people throughout the country in all communities, rural and urban. Indeed, without arts funding this country would be a much poorer place.

Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con): The Minister will be aware that in the east midlands, and in Leicestershire in particular, there is concern that less than the average number of bids from the region are successful. Why are we discriminated against in this way?

Estelle Morris: It is impossible to discriminate in terms of bids because the Government do not control the number of bids coming in, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. On outcomes, the situation in the east midlands may well resemble that in my own constituency, in that it does not get what one might call its fair share of lottery fund money. The Government, together with the lottery distributors, have already embarked on the fair share initiative, through which we will work very carefully with those areas that are not receiving a fair amount of money.

I should point out that if the hon. Gentleman feels that applications from his area are not forthcoming, the lottery distributors would be more than happy to meet him, and perhaps to work jointly with his constituency and the neighbouring constituencies to encourage grass-roots organisations to make bids. If they do not make the bids, they cannot get the money. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a very important point, and I very much hope that he will respond to that invitation. Lottery distributors are more than willing to work with any Member of this House to increase the number of bids from under-represented constituencies.

Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): Why is the bureaucracy associated with efforts to get money from
 
24 May 2004 : Column 1291
 
the lottery so difficult to deal with? Does the Minister agree with the criticism offered by my local schools and Bedfordshire county council, which said that it has been exceptionally difficult to get lottery distribution money for new sports facilities from the New Opportunities Fund? Indeed, when the fund was set up in 2001, it was allocated a budget of £500 million, but until last month only £10.4 million had actually been spent.

Estelle Morris: We do need to reduce bureaucracy; indeed, there is nothing more frustrating than people being put off making bids because they feel that the process will prove too bureaucratic. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism tells me that the programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers is now ahead of schedule. However, there have been bureaucratic problems, and I hope that they have been sorted out. In respect of the awards for all initiative, for example, the waiting time from application to making the grant has been significantly reduced. All lottery distributors are aware of the problems associated with too much form filling and lengthy waiting times for the making of decisions. I take seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and we need constantly to keep our eye on the situation, and to do all that we can to reduce form filling and bureaucracy.

---