| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 1, after 'may', insert
'(subject to the restriction in subsection (1A)(b))'.
This amendment refers to the provision in clause 4 of the Bill to allow the National Lottery Commission to include provision in the licences it issues under sections 5 and 6 of the National Lottery Act 1993 to grant an extension of such a licence. It is our intention that any such extension is subject to the maximum total licence length of 15 years imposed by new section 7(1A)(b) inserted by clause 4. Although we consider that clause 4, as originally worded, would achieve that end, it became clear in Committee that the issue of the impact of an extension was subject to doubt. The amendment will therefore provide unambiguous clarification that the maximum length of a licence would be 15 years, inclusive of any extension. I hope that that clears up some of the misunderstanding that we had in Committee.
3.45 pm
Mr. Mark Field:
I must confess that, not having served on the Standing Committee, it seems somewhat superfluous to refer to what happened 15 years ago. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the other hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will tell me otherwise, but I am sure that this is an entirely uncontroversial Government amendment. Perhaps I speak for myself on that matter, and perhaps
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1025
we shall hear a longer speech from the hon. Gentleman before too long. The Government amendment obviously seems sensible. Their draftsmen no doubt have in mind a belt-and-braces approach. I do not think any great concern has been raised, and I therefore hope that we shall move swiftly on to the next group of amendments.
Mr. Don Foster: I had not intended to speak, but perhaps I can give the Minister an opportunity to reflect on the words uttered by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). He said that the Government amendment is not controversial. It is not controversial in the sense that it merely confirms what most hon. Members knew was the Government's intention, but it is controversial in the sense that many people argue that a different licence length should be given to the lottery. Some people argue that the licence should last a short period, while others argue that it should last a long time.
Given that we are about to enter into a new phase of deliberation about who will provide the lottery in future, it is crucial that the Government are clear about issue, because it has a huge impact on who will bid to run the lottery and on the terms and conditions under which people would expect to run it. It is vital to make such matters clear, although, as I said in Committee, I believe that the Government have got the balance between the arguments about very short and very long time scales 100 per cent. right. Indeed, they have included the flexibility to extend the fixed period. So it is important to make that vital issue clear.
Mr. Caborn: It is absolutely right that this is one of the tools that we will use to maximise the lottery, by setting the conditions for those who will negotiate. I am sure that we will not finish up, as we did last time with the new licence, in something of a mess, which created a few problems. We have looked at that carefully and reflected on it, and as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says, we have just about got it right, so that we can maximise the marketplace. I am pretty sure that we will attract a good number of bidders, thus serving the health of the lottery.
Mr. Don Foster: The Minister says that he is optimistic that there will be a large number of bids. Since the proceedings in Committee finished, a lot of work has been going on to talk to various people. Perhaps the Minister can briefly bring the House up to date on how successfully that issue has been handled.
Mr. Caborn: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that, because I do not know exactly how many people are involved. I have not been briefed about that in recent weeks, so I would not want to say at the Dispatch Box something that is wrong. However, I will write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Mark Field:
I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 5, line 14, leave out 'prescribed'.
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1026
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 4, in page 5, line 19, at end insert—
'(2A) After subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Not less than 70 per cent. of the sum allocated under subsection (3) (d) shall be allocated to bodies (other than public bodies or local authorities) whose activities are carried on not for profit.".'.
No. 3, in page 5, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
No. 5, in page 5, line 38, at end insert—
'(da) persons that the Secretary of State considers to be representative of bodies (other than public or local authorities) whose activities are not carried on for profit,'.
No. 11, in clause 14, page 9, line 13, leave out 'comply with' and insert 'take account of'.
No. 10, in page 13, line 2, leave out clause 19.
Mr. Field: [Interruption.] And people say that there is no bugging in the House.
May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his earlier kind words about my new Front-Bench role? We have a number of things in common. We are both keen football fans—a rarity, perhaps, among Opposition Members, but less so among Labour Members. The Minister might not recall that I first met him some years before I was elected to the House at the erstwhile ground of Reading football club—my home town—at Elm Park. Unfortunately, Reading have remained a thorn in the side of Sheffield United, and I suspect that they will remain so for much of this season, as they both try to get into the premiership next year. Good luck to the Blades and good luck obviously to the Royals as well.
The Minister and I also have another thing in common: we share a birthday. It may be obvious that he is a few years older than me. Suffice it to say that he came of age on the day that I was born, and of course coming of age in 1964—the year that I was born—was a somewhat different proposition to what it may be today. There is one other Member of the House with whom we share a birthday, although he does not attend regularly: the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams). Suffice it to say that if I grow a beard, we will be almost indistinguishable as a trio of people born on 6 October. However, enough of this frivolity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me turn to amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
A major theme of the Bill is the way in which the Secretary of State is taking more power over lottery expenditure than she has at present. Worry about that was expressed on Second Reading and in Committee, and it is one of the reasons why we have tabled the amendments. Section 22 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 sets out the division of funds among good clauses. Clause 7(2)(b) of the Bill will merge the charitable, health, education and environmental pots for the purposes of creating the Big Lottery Fund. However, that sum is allocated for "prescribed expenditure", rather than expenditure that falls simply within the specific categories set out in section 22 of the 1993 Act. The expenditure is, of course, prescribed by the Secretary of State by order.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would remove the Secretary of State's ability to prescribe expenditure in such a way. The Big Lottery Fund should be able to
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1027
spend on any matter that its objects allow, rather than be limited to the pet projects of any Secretary of State. We have in mind a situation in which there is discretion in the hands of the distributor, instead of a mandatory stick of compliance that is wielded by the Secretary of State.
The Bill sets out clearly and transparently the purposes of Big Lottery Fund expenditure, but we do not think that that should be narrowed down by the Secretary of State's orders. We will run the risk of that happening unless the amendments are accepted. While the Secretary of State has powers over spending due to sections 25 and 26 of the 1993 Act, the prescribed expenditure is a new and further way of directing funds. We find the proposal objectionable and think that we need some means of overturning it. In summary, amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would put the Big Lottery Fund in the same position as other distributing bodies and remove the prospect of the Secretary of State being able to override it. We may return to that matter later in the debate.
Amendment No. 4 would apply to charitable and voluntary groups that are not charities. It would put in the Bill the assurance that the Minister gave on Second Reading that some 60 to 70 per cent. of Big Lottery Fund expenditure would go to voluntary or community groups. We decided that as the Minister is a generous man and he intended to provide reassurance to those groups, we would pitch for the higher figure of 70 per cent. in amendment No. 4.
On Second Reading, the Minister said:
"I acknowledge that some have said that a Big Lottery Fund could lead to voluntary and community sector organisations losing out. I can give a categorical assurance that that will not happen . . . The Big Lottery Fund has given a clear undertaking that 60 to 70 per cent. of its funding will go directly to the sector."—[Official Report, 14 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 170.]
It was thus somewhat disappointing that the Minister resisted such an amendment in Committee, when he said:
"As that undertaking has been given by the boards of the Community Fund and the New Opportunity Fund, not the Government, it would not be appropriate to enshrine it in the Bill"
"It is not for the Government to decide whether it is 60 or 70 per cent.; it is a decision for the Big Lottery Fund."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 October 2005; c. 40.]
As I pointed out when I spoke to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, we want to ensure that the Big Lottery Fund has proper discretion. Given the assurances that were made on Second Reading, I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 4.
Indeed, on Second Reading, the Minister said:
"I give a guarantee that between 60 and 70 per cent. of the Big Lottery Fund's income will go to communities or charities."
In case there was any mistake, his ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), said in the same debate:
"We guarantee that between 60 and 70 per cent. of Big Lottery Fund grants will go to the voluntary sector"—[Official Report, 14 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 175, 218.]
A Government guarantee was given to the House on Second Reading. Both Ministers who spoke in the debate made it clear that the matter was for the Government to decide, which is why amendment No. 4 should be accepted.
Amendment No. 5 is designed to add to the persons—bodies representing the voluntary sector—who need to be consulted before the Secretary of State prescribes expenditure. It is based on proposals by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which helped the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to prepare for our discussion on Report. I shall also give it credit where credit is due at a later point. I understand that the hon. Members for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and for Bath (Mr. Foster) put their names to the amendment in Committee.
Whether particular voluntary organisations or their projects will be able to obtain grants from the Big Lottery Fund will depend on whether their activities are within the expenditure prescribed by the Secretary of State. She should therefore identify representative bodies and ensure that she consults them before making such important decisions.
There has been concern about consultation on lottery issues. The NCVO concludes:
"the Department for Culture, Media and Sport . . . and its affiliates have frequently ignored or overlooked"
a range of bodies that perhaps should have been consulted. I appreciate that the charitable and voluntary sector in particular is in a constant state of flux, with bodies starting up, closing down or amalgamating at any one time. It will be difficult to keep a rigorous list of those groups that should be consulted, but concern has been reiterated by a number of bodies about whether there has been sufficient consultation. On that basis, I hope that considerable thought will be given to what we are trying to do to ensure that a proper and comprehensive consultation process takes place.
We want agreement on the consultation between the DCMS and the voluntary and community sectors. The NCVO gave a specific example. It felt that there was
"A series of failures over an 18 month period by the DCMS to consult with the voluntary sector in a meaningful or clear way in regards to the proposed merger of the Community Fund and NOF."
On multiple occasions during that period there were also breaches of its consultation code. Many of us, as constituency Members, will have anecdotal evidence of that. Many of my residents and local groups are concerned about another aspect of the DCMS—the royal parks. They think that they should be consulted from time to time and feel outside the consultation loop. As I said, I appreciate that rigorous consultation is difficult when a large number of groups is set up and amalgamated, but it should be given proper consideration.
I again thank the NCVO for its assistance in helping us to propose amendment No. 11.
Clause 14 covers the functions of the Big Lottery Fund, including the power to distribute funds and to give advice, and the policy and financial direction of the fund. The amendment would ensure that the statutory framework for the new distributor more accurately reflected the statutory framework of the former distributors. The Community Fund was required only
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1029
to take account of such policy directions while the New Opportunities Fund was required to comply. Since its creation in 1993, the Community Fund has been required to take account of matters concerning grant making and the conditions under which the money is distributed by the Secretary of State. That should continue with the amalgamation of the funds into the Big Lottery Fund. We are suggesting that we have continuity in the manner in which the issues are debated.
There was concern among voluntary and community sector organisations at the time of the merger that the new distributor would more closely resemble the New Opportunities Fund than the Community Fund, representing a significant increase in Government control of funding for the charitable good cause. In Committee, the Minister said:
"We are combining NOF with the Community Fund and the Millennium Commission in the Big Lottery Fund, and we are taking no more powers than already exist under NOF."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 October 2005; c. 112.]
In oral questions as recently as 24 October last year and elsewhere, assurances were given that the Big Lottery Fund would not be subject to any greater powers of direction than its former distributors. It now transpires, however, that that means no greater powers of direction than were given to the New Opportunities Fund. Had that been mooted at the time of the merger, it would probably not have received such overwhelming backing from the voluntary and community sector, and certainly not from the NCVO.
4 pm
In its submission to DCMS in June 2003, the NCVO stated:
"The Secretary of State currently has the power to specify the initiatives to which NOF will give effect (i.e. the programmes which it is required to run) . . . To strengthen the independence of the new body and the additionality of its funding"—
I will not reopen our earlier debates on that subject, but the submission refers to the additionality of funding "both actual and perceived". Perception is important, as we discussed in relation to the last amendment. The submission said that, to strengthen the independence of the new body and the additionality of its funding
Concerns about the New Opportunities Fund will multiply unless we use the words "take account of" instead of "comply with".
I hope that the Minister accepts that perception is important. The lowest common denominator—perhaps, from the Government's point of view, it is the highest common factor—means that there will be more Government control, which is not healthy. The NCVO submission to DCMS in June 2003 said:
"NOF only has the scope to consult on the way in which initiatives will be administered, not on what those initiatives will be. This is in contrast to the Community Fund which has the freedom to set its own strategic direction, priorities and programmes, following consultation with stakeholders, including the Secretary of State, albeit within broad Policy Directions.
The new body should be given the freedom and independence, in particular from government, to set its own strategic direction, priorities and programmes after consultation, within a broad framework set by the legislation and Policy Directions."
The control afforded to the Secretary of State in clause 14 as currently drafted threatens to undermine the independence of the Big Lottery Fund. It is vital that lottery distributors remain free from Government interference but accountable to Parliament. Research shows that the public are strongly in favour of the national lottery, particularly if it remains independent of the Government. Some 73 per cent. of respondents to an ICM opinion poll commissioned only last year said that an independent public body should decide how lottery money is spent. In Committee, hon. Members were provided with illustrative policy directions, and the Minister gave us the assurance that the Government have no intention of using those powers to intervene in individual grant decisions. Nevertheless, the future independence of lottery distributors cannot be guaranteed if those powers remain in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will consider our arguments carefully, as they are at the heart of several of our amendments and we intend to divide the House if we do not receive a satisfactory response.
Finally, with your consent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to press amendment No. 10. We have expressed concern that there is little reason to change the definition of charitable expenditure in section 44 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. There is certainly a good case for updating the guidance to ensure that it enables the new distributor to fund all the relevant organisations. However, my party takes seriously the work of organisations such as the Social Enterprise Coalition, whose representatives we have met on many occasions. The coalition's opinion is that the new definition proposed by clause 19 will give the lottery much greater scope for funding social enterprises that would otherwise fall short of the definition and be outside the scope of a lottery award. We appreciate that the issue should be subject to further consultation so that we get it right, and I hope that the Minister can initiate such consultation before the Bill goes to another place. On that basis, although we do not seek to press amendment No. 10, we trust that the other amendments that my colleagues and I have tabled will receive further consideration.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |