| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mark Field : I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 41, leave out clause 8.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 6, line 7, leave out 'order' and insert
'appropriate subsection of section 23.'.
No. 7, in page 6, line 8, at end insert—
'(2A) An order under this section may not prevent a body from meeting commitments it has made to provide funds in accordance with any agreed timescale.'.
No. 9, in page 6, line 21, leave out clause 9.
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1042
Mr. Field: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are designed to prevent a reallocation of funds that would result in current commitments not being kept or being delayed by force. The impact on projects of breaking commitments or delaying funding could be catastrophic. Problems with lottery funding could also lead to a loss of matched funding, which would be disastrous for the distributors concerned.
We were delighted to receive backing from the National Campaign for the Arts in tabling these amendments. It recognises that the intention behind providing the power to transfer money between distributors is to encourage a reduction in balances, and we accept that there is no intention that this power be misused. It also recognises that there are powerful reasons both for and against providing the imperative drastically to reduce distributors' balances. On the one hand, it is important that organisations receive money as quickly as possible; on the other, we should be wary of creating a situation in which distributors cannot be fully responsible for their financial planning. The uncertainty that that would create would be felt at the level of individual organisations, which could have the money allocated to their projects removed due to a transfer of money to another distributor.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had said that they would not exercise the power in a way that would threaten, or put into doubt, any commitment on the part of a distributor from which they proposed transferring a fund balance, and that he was happy to repeat that undertaking. We believe, however, that no convincing reason has been given as to why such a provision cannot be included in the Bill. We recognise that not all aspects of policy can, need or should be included in legislation. However, as the Minister is aware and as we said several times in Committee, the lottery is intended to promote and enable the good work carried out by thousands of organisations. They deserve no less than an absolute guarantee from the Government that promised funds will be delivered. We believe that Amendment No. 7 would secure that undertaking, and we ask all parts of the House to support it.
I appreciate that time is tight and that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) would like to say a few words, so if I may I shall canter through our amendments Nos. 6 and 8. The former seeks to change clause 8 by replacing the word "order" with
Clause 8 enables the Secretary of State to reallocate funds to different bodies without changing the purpose of funding. For example, the Big Lottery Fund could be authorised to spend some of the money allocated for arts or national heritage, instead of Arts Council England or the National Heritage Memorial Fund doing so. Section 23 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 sets out the various distributing bodies. The Bill as originally drafted provided for distribution by a different body, as specified in section 23. Amendment No. 6 confines the ability to reallocate funds between distribution bodies to those that are in the same category, so reallocation could take place between Arts Council England and the Scottish Arts Council, for example, as both are included under section 23(1) of the 1993 Act. However, the amendment would not allow a reallocation from Arts Council England to, for example, the Big Lottery Fund.
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1043
We believe that there is no good reason why the BLF, which, as the Minister said only minutes ago, will have some 50 per cent. of the moneys in any event, should be able to redistribute the remaining arts, sports or heritage moneys. In practice, our amendment provides that the funds of the Heritage Lottery Fund and the national lottery charity fund cannot be reallocated. That is the right way forward, particularly given that the BLF will account for some 50 per cent. of all allocatable funds.
Amendment No. 9 would delete clause 9, which makes a change that, although apparently technical, will have a substantial impact on the good causes. Currently, the national debt commissioners invest moneys that are not immediately needed by distributing bodies, under section 32 of the 1993 Act. The interest received is paid back to the distributing body whose money it is.
Clause 9 will put that interest into a general lottery pot to be distributed among all the distributing bodies on the original proportionate basis. Those bodies funding projects with long lead-in times, such as major arts or heritage projects—like some of the projects in my constituency, which the Minister may have been too polite to mention earlier—will lose more interest on their funds than they will get back in the redistribution.
Clause 9 is an important mechanism for transferring money from heritage and lottery causes to the Big Lottery Fund, and imperils existing funding commitments. That was made clear in the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on the reform of the national lottery. The Committee received significant evidence from the Heritage Lottery Fund that all the money currently held in the lottery national distribution fund, and £188 million extra, was not being badly managed but had already been allocated.
I hope that the Minister will give some thought to these amendments, as we are concerned about the reallocation proposals. I appreciate that time is tight, and that he might not be able to deal with all the points in full. If that is the case, he may prefer to do so in writing at some point. However, these are important issues and they go to the heart of the concern that the Secretary of State is gaining ever more power to prescribe. We believe that that is the wrong way to go.
Jo Swinson:
I, too, am aware of the pressure of time, so I shall be brief. First, I want to place it on record that my party supports amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8, but I have one question for the Minister in respect of amendment No. 9, which would delete clause 9 from the Bill. We believe that clause 9 would be to the detriment of the Heritage Lottery Fund and cause it to lose an estimated £15 million a year. On Second Reading, the Minister said that nothing in the Bill would allow money to be taken from heritage and spent on something else. In Committee, however, he said that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was right to think that heritage would lose out from interest accrued on large balances, as that interest would be distributed. Will the Minister clarify those apparently conflicting statements?
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1044
Mr. Caborn: I am sure that the House will be aware of all the pubic concern over the past five years about the high level of national lottery funds' balances. On television one night, I even had to defend those massive balances to Jeremy Paxman. The National Audit Office concluded in July 2004 that money held in the distribution fund was
The Public Accounts Committee concluded last October that
However, I can tell the House that the Government began to discuss the problems in earnest in 2001.
With these amendments, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats want to defend the status quo, and to keep money idle when it should be out in the community. As early as 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the initiative and set the specific objective that the overall balances of the distributing bodies should be halved. Under our watch, those balances have since fallen by more than one third, from more than £3.5 billion to £2.25 billion. That is a significant achievement.
However, the overall balance has not fallen as far as we would have liked, as Opposition Members have not been reluctant to point out. The PAC report also suggested that progress in that regard should be faster.
Clause 8 gives the Government another tool in the armoury for reducing the balances. The Opposition should not criticise our progress in reducing the balances when amendment No. 8 would deny us further powers to speed up that reduction.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |