| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Caborn: As drafted, new clause 3 would require a distributing body to have regard to the ease of application for its grants if it solicits applications for grants. However, I wonder whether the intention behind the new clause was the more general one of requiring distributing bodies to have constant regard to the ease of applications, whether or not they have been sought. I agree with the sentiments behind the new clause, which was tabled jointly by the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). It is very important that it be made easier for people to access lottery funding; indeed, that is one of the Bill's aims. As the hon. Member for Bath said, we have made steady progress in that regard and, hopefully, we will continue to do so. As I said to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) earlier, that is what we want to achieve.
We are encouraging all lottery distributing bodies to make their application processes easier, and that is already happening. Where we need to legislate, we have already done so. Clause 14 inserts a new section 36D into the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 that will enable the Big Lottery Fund to give wider lottery advice, particularly on the inviting, making or considering of applications for grants. That will, in turn, enable the BLF to develop common application forms, and to take a lead on the sharing of best practice and on the developing of pre-application support and common standards of service.
A good example of the sort of thing that new section 36D will enable is the lottery funding website, which will be launched soon. It will provide a single front door and give up-to-date detailed advice and guidance on how and where to apply for lottery grants. That will be particularly helpful to organisations and people who find it difficult to apply for lottery funding under the current system. One such example is village halls, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) pointed out in an Adjournment debate last October. However, we see no case for introducing a specific requirement in that regard. As I said earlier, we are keen to reduce bureaucratic and administrative
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1022
burdens, not to add to them. We see no reason to link such a requirement specifically to the soliciting of applications.
We gave lottery distributing bodies the power to solicit applications back in 1998, and doing so has proved very successful indeed. Before 1998, distributing bodies had to wait for an application to arrive, often from the great and good. That change has had a considerable impact. The lottery forum, which represents lottery distributing bodies, told us that introducing the enabling power to solicit applications was key to widening access to the lottery; it enabled distributing bodies actively to seek applications from certain communities. We do not want distributing bodies to be restricted in any way in their ability to solicit applications.
Amendment No. 13 takes us back to a debate in Committee. I appreciate that in tabling it, the hon. Members for Bath and for East Dunbartonshire were to some extent prompted by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. They are concerned that, as drafted, clause 11 will encourage people to play the lottery and to regard it as a good way to give money to charity. As I tried to explain in Committee, it will do no such thing. Promotion of the lottery games is entirely a matter for Camelot, the lottery licence holder. Clause 11 will remove the doubt that exists in some minds about whether the lottery distributing bodies have the proper powers to publicise the national lottery beyond the grants that they award and the purpose behind them. It will allow them to publish more general information about the work of all lottery distributing bodies, so that the public can be better informed about where the money was awarded.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Bath said so succinctly in respect of today's national newspaper reports about the Heritage Lottery Fund and St. Paul's. The reports are unacceptable, and the newspapers involved should read Hansard and make amends by clarifying what actually happened. However, that case underlines why we believe that it is necessary for the lottery to promote the good causes that it supports.
Mr. Mark Field: May I say that I agree with the Minister? St. Paul's is in my constituency and I have had dealings with people there. I have also worked with people at St. Martin in the Fields, which in recent years received a very large grant. There were parallels between those cases, but it was accepted that St. Paul's would need to reassess its application.
The Minister has described the process of giving information, but will he confirm that it will involve more than simply rubbishing press reports? The process should not be merely reactive—information should be made available regularly and proactively, to ensure that the spirit of new clause 3 and amendment No. 13 is retained.
Mr. Caborn:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but I emphasise that we do not believe that it will be enough to restrict the power to the sole benefit of the distributing bodies. Our definition is wide because there is such a wide range of publicity activities for those bodies to get involved in. Public awareness of the lottery can take many forms and we would not want to limit how the distributing bodies can convey awareness of what the lottery has funded.
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1023
The distributing bodies must be able to tell all the good news stories about the good causes and about how people are benefiting from lottery funding. To that end, we want to ensure that they can participate fully in the work of the national lottery promotions unit, which seeks to raise positive awareness of, and support for, the benefits of national lottery good cause funding across the whole country.
Specific examples of that wider promotion are the hugely successful national lottery day and the national lottery awards. Those innovations are designed to raise public awareness of how lottery money is used for good causes, and both are held under the auspices of the national lottery promotions unit. We want to ensure that they and other promotions of the lottery good causes can continue, and retain the full engagement of the distributing bodies.
I realise that some unintentional confusion was generated in Standing Committee when the hon. Member for Bath picked up a typographical error in the explanatory notes. I have served on many Committees with him and know that he always goes through such notes very carefully. With his eagle eye, he spotted that the notes said that the process would contribute to the "brand" health of the lottery. They should have said that the process will contribute to the "broad" health of the lottery, and that is what will appear in the revised version that I hope will come out tomorrow.
At the time, I did not recognise the significance of what the hon. Member for Bath was saying. I hope that he will accept my apologies and assurances in respect of this matter.
To sum up, new clause 3 is intended to be helpful, but it would put another bureaucratic obstacle in the way of getting lottery money more quickly to good causes. I am sure that the House would not want that to happen. Amendment No. 13 is similarly well intentioned, but it would place unreasonable restrictions on the ability of distributing bodies to be fully involved in work to promote the lottery good causes and would therefore undermine the good work of the national lottery promotions unit. The fact that the lottery can be undermined by inaccurate reporting shows that lottery promoters need the powers in the Bill so that they can give a positive and proactive account of what is happening with the good causes, and in that way retain public support. I therefore hope that new clause 3 and amendment No. 13 be withdrawn.
Mr. Don Foster: I shall begin as I began when I summed up the last debate, namely, by thanking the Minister. He has been extraordinarily generous in his remarks to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on the new clause that we tabled. I am also grateful for his kind comments about the diligence with which I study explanatory notes. I hope that he noticed that I did not even refer to that episode in my opening remarks, having decided to reserve mention until this point, had the Minister failed to mention it. However, he has admitted that he made an error and confirmed that it will be changed, and I welcome that, as I welcome the spirit of his remarks.
In relation to new clause 3, I understand, just about, the Minister's point about it adding bureaucracy to the system, but the example he gave suggested that by making
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1024
it easier to fill in an application form, it would somehow lengthen the time it takes for someone to access the funds. I have difficulty in coming to terms with that, but perhaps in a subsequent private conversation he will explain to me how that could be the case.
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming what I said earlier about the St. Paul's issue and he is 100 per cent. right to say that the newspaper concerned owes its readers and all the bodies concerned an early correction of the error. I acknowledge what he said about the need to ensure that lottery distributors do not promote the playing of the lottery and lottery games, but it is important that they should promote the good causes. I genuinely believe that the lottery distributors are doing that already and they are doing a good job.
I hear from Sir Clive Booth, the excellent chairman of the Big Lottery Fund, that every time I mention his name and call him excellent, one of his relatives goes—well, the expression he used is one that I probably should not use in the Chamber. Let us say that his relative is delighted when I make the connection between Sir Clive and excellence. In any case, I very much welcome the good work that the BLF and other distributors are doing.
Given the assurances that the Minister has given, it would be sensible to acknowledge that the work that I want to happen will happen and I shall therefore not press the issue to a vote. I welcome the Minister's assurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |