| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mark Field: In that context, will the Minister answer the point that I made in my initial comments in relation to the Leonard Cheshire homes? Because the charity is a UK-wide body, it would have a single template and thus avoid multiple applications for Big Lottery Fund distribution, but the nature of the distribution and the other giving is such that there are many small, quite regionalised award-giving bodies, which makes it necessary for such a charity to duplicate its paperwork many times over for the various applications, instead of making a single UK-wide application. Is there any proposal to do away with such wasteful duplication?
Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will take the matter up with the Big Lottery Fund. We will do anything that we can to streamline applications. That is covered on the website. Measures that the Big Lottery Fund has put in place should make it more sensitive at national, regional and sub-regional level to organisations such as the one that the hon. Gentleman described.
The undertaking by the Big Lottery Fund that 60 to 70 per cent. of its funding will go to voluntary and community sector organisations is a commitment by the Big Lottery Fund alone and is not applicable more widely. We shall have a full discussion of that undertaking when we come to amendment No. 4. For now, I say again that the undertaking has been given by the boards of the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund, operating as the Big Lottery Fund, and not by the Government. We fully support the
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1012
undertaking, but we do not need to repeat it or write it into the Bill. I want to make it clear that it does not apply to other distributing bodies.
We do not support new clause 1 in the form in which it has been tabled, for the reasons that I have given, but we will have the co-operation of the chief executives of the other distributors, which will probably take the same position as the Big Lottery Fund. It will be possible to debate additionality in the House in an informed way, against the background of the annual report.
Mr. Don Foster: First, before the Minister was intervened on by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), he began a set of remarks about regulatory reform legislation. I could not see where he was going with those remarks, so perhaps he will explain precisely what he means. Secondly, he has said that the chief executives of the various distributors have assured him that they will produce a report, which he has told the House will enable hon. Members to debate the matter. Without a mechanism to place the report formally before the House, however, he is not going very far in meeting the issues raised by new clause 1.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for many years, and he knows that Ministers do not organise the House's time from the Dispatch Box. The information on additionality that the hon. Gentleman wants will be available in the annual reports of the distributors, which will be placed in both Houses of Parliament. Those reports can be used to inform a debate, whenever hon. Members want to hold it.
The hon. Gentleman should make a commitment from his Front Bench that the Liberal party will give up one Supply day—half a Supply day will do—every year to debate additionality. If he were to make such a commitment, it would advance new clause 1. He should give up a Supply day to debate the information that the chief executives of the various distributing bodies will put in their annual reports. I wonder whether he wants me to give way so that he can say yes to that proposal.
Mr. Don Foster: I am not rising to give the Minister the assurance that he seeks. From the Dispatch Box, he has told us that additionality is so important that he interrupted a meeting in his Department today to discuss new clause 1. However, he expects Opposition parties to give up their limited time on the Floor of the House to debate it, when it is the Government's responsibility. It should be debated in Government time, not Opposition time.
Mr. Caborn: People reading Hansard will make their own judgment. The Liberal party tabled new clause 1, and I have delivered all the information required from the Dispatch Box. The information will be there for Parliament to debate, but the hon. Gentleman will not make a commitment from the Front Bench to give up a Supply day to use that information to inform the nation. I think that the nation will make a judgment on how he can be so hypocritical.
New clause 2 seeks to define additionality by reference to what Governments do not usually fund and to hold both distributing bodies and the Secretary of State to
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1013
such a definition. The Government entirely reject new clause 2 for reasons that I explained at some length in Committee. Strictly speaking, additionality is a matter between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury. If my Department were ever to seek to replace its funding with lottery funding, the Treasury would rightly reduce our funding by the same amount. Additionality will never be constant, so we cannot define what Governments usually provide. The Government provide money—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Bath would listen—he has tabled new clause 1 but he is not even listening to what I am saying. I am trying to explain to him and to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster why we reject new clause 2.
The Government provide money to some charities, which is not core Government spending. Does that mean that the lottery should not give more to charities? The Government provide money to arts, sports and heritage in many areas—that is not core, or mainstream, Government spending. Does that mean that lottery funding cannot be used as well? We can follow the principle of additionality, but if we try to define it, or what the Government should "usually" fund, we will be restricted in some way from funding genuine good cause projects in the future. We cannot predict what those projects will be, but it is likely that those who will be most upset when we do not continue to fund them are those calling on us to set a definition.
It might help if I highlight some examples of good projects that have been funded from just one lottery programme—"New Opportunities for PE and Sport"—in the constituencies of hon. Members who tabled the new clause. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, Westminster city council awarded almost £80,000 for improvements to the sports hall at Millbank primary school. Does he want us to withdraw that money because it is part of mainstream Government funding?
In the constituency of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), Cambridgeshire county council received more than £1.1 million for sporting facilities to provide young people and the community generally with high-quality tennis courts, a floodlit multi-use games area and a wide range of after-school sports activities. Should we withdraw those areas of funding because they are additional to Government spending?
Mr. Walker: I hope that the Minister has some good news for Broxbourne on his list, because I recall that in Committee I was sometimes disappointed when he managed to gloss over my beautiful constituency.
Mr. Caborn: Unfortunately, I do not have an example, but I will find one. I will refer to the hon. Gentleman's constituency before the end of the debate. I am looking to my officials to ensure that they dig out all the stats.
As the hon. Member for Bath noted, there is a difference of opinion between Conservative Front Benchers. At the last election, the Conservatives proposed a scheme called Club2School, whereby every child would have the right to two hours of free after-school sports coaching. There is nothing wrong with
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1014
that—we completely agree with it—but where was the £750 million with which they proposed to pay for it going to come from? The new Leader of the Opposition has told us that it would come out of the lottery.
As the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) has just returned to his seat, let me tell him that he was wrong on two counts: the Bill winds up the Millennium Commission, and the residue of the money will go towards the development of the Olympics. The money was not spent in 2000, because it is still there. The final decision will be taken by the board.
To sum up, we support the independence of lottery distributing bodies and the principle of additionality. All distributors are aware of the need to follow that principle. They have responded positively and practically to the demands that were made in Committee. I hope that, given that explanation and the positive moves made by the chief executives of the funding bodies, new clause 1 will be withdrawn.
Mr. Don Foster: I begin by thanking the Minister for his conduct of the debate on the important subject of additionality. I also thank him for the praise that he heaped on me—for my helpfulness and consideration and the way in which I took account of all the discussions in Committee and other places. I thank him, too, for the meeting that he held today with the chief executives of the lottery distributors.
However, on 14 June last year on the Floor of the House, the Minister—nobody else—said that
"additionality was an important principle that should be embodied in future legislation."—[Official Report, 14 June 2005; Vol. 435, c.168.]
He did not say that we should get assurances from all sorts of people outside and include nothing about it in the measure. I welcome the fact that he has got those assurances—that constitutes huge progress—but I believe that what he said in June last year was right. We need the principle to be embodied in the legislation.
3 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |