The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Sir
Nicholas
Winterton
Allen,
Mr. Graham
(Nottingham, North)
(Lab)
†
Caborn,
Mr. Richard
(Minister for
Sport)Corbyn,
Jeremy
(Islington, North)
(Lab)
†
Donohoe,
Mr. Brian H.
(Central Ayrshire)
(Lab)
Ellwood,
Mr. Tobias
(Bournemouth, East)
(Con)
†
Etherington,
Bill
(Sunderland, North)
(Lab)
†
Field,
Mr. Mark
(Cities of London and Westminster)
(Con)
†
Fisher,
Mark
(Stoke-on-Trent, Central)
(Lab)
†
Foster,
Mr. Don
(Bath)
(LD)
†
Irranca-Davies,
Huw
(Ogmore)
(Lab)
†
Mahmood,
Mr. Khalid
(Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab)
†
Mann,
John
(Bassetlaw)
(Lab)
†
Marsden,
Mr. Gordon
(Blackpool, South)
(Lab)
†
Sanders,
Mr. Adrian
(Torbay)
(LD)
Stuart,
Mr. Graham
(Beverley and Holderness)
(Con)
†
Walter,
Mr. Robert
(North Dorset)
(Con)
†
Wilson,
Mr. Rob
(Reading, East)
(Con)
Frank
Cranmer, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the
Committee
The following
also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
118(2):
Keeble,
Ms Sally
(Northampton, North)
(Lab)
Third
Standing Committee on Delegated
Legislation
Monday 30
October
2006
[Sir
Nicholas Winterton in the
Chair]
Draft Big Lottery Fund (Prescribed Expenditure) Order 2006
4.30
pm
The
Chairman: In saying this I shall be entirely out of order,
but I rule whether we are out of order, so I shall not rule myself out
of order. I wish publicly to pay tribute to Frank Cranmer, our Clerk
today. He will be leaving the House of Commons at the end of the week,
and I wish to put on record that he has been an outstanding servant of
the House and to Members of Parliament. We shall certainly miss him. As
a member of the Chairmen’s Panel I shall personally miss him
very much indeed. We wish him every success for his future.
[
Hon. Members: “Hear,
hear.”]
The
Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I add
my congratulations to Mr. Cranmer. As you well know, Sir
Nicholas, I was Chairman of a Select Committee for a good number of
years. A big mistake that I made was when I got mixed up between the
employees of the House and civil servants. I was told in no uncertain
terms, “We are not civil servants. We are servants of the
House.” That is a great tribute to people such as Frank Cranmer.
I wish him the best of luck for the future and thank him for all his
dedication as a Clerk of the House of
Commons.
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Big Lottery Fund (Prescribed
Expenditure) Order
2006.
Following the
National Lottery Act 2006, which received Royal Assent in July, we aim
to make the Big Lottery Fund fully functional on 1 December. That will
also be the date on which the distributors—the National Lottery
Charities Board, the Millenium Commission and the New Opportunities
Fund—will be dissolved. To enable the Big Lottery Fund to start
distributing money from that date we need to make an order under
section 22(3A) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 and issue new
policy directions under section 36E of that Act. The order will allow
the Big Lottery Fund to distribute money to good causes that
are
“charitable or
connected with health, education or the
environment”.
It
will largely enact within the new legislative framework the interim
orders that we made last year on the New Opportunities Fund. It is
almost identical to the illustrative order that we made available to
the House during the passage of the 2006 Act. It will ensure that the
Big Lottery Fund can fund exciting and worthwhile projects, making a
real difference to communities the length and breadth of the United
Kingdom.
The
order specifies two types of expenditure to be made by the fund;
devolved and non-devolved, otherwise known as UK-wide expenditure.
There will be two
types of devolved expenditure: first, that on the three high-level
themes—community learning, the promotion of community safety and
cohesion and the promotion of well-being. Those themes have been the
subject of intense consultation by the Big Lottery Fund, with the
majority of respondents agreeing that they provide an appropriate and
flexible strategic framework for future funding. The second type of
devolved expenditure is that on small grants—the popular and
successful awards for all scheme. Devolved expenditure will be the
responsibility of the new country committees of the Big Lottery Fund,
established in the 2006 Act, subject to directions issued by the
relevant devolved Administration. That represents a significant
devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which I
hope the Committee will
welcome.
The order
also specifies one type of non-devolved expenditure: transformational
grants. They are defined as expenditure that
is
“intended to transform
communities, regions or the nation as a
whole.”
It will be
delivered by the Big Lottery Fund through its living landmarks and
people’s millions
projects.
Let me
remind the Committee why we sought the power to prescribe types of
expenditure for the Big Lottery Fund. The new Big Lottery Fund good
cause is broad in scope and large in terms of the percentage of lottery
money allocated to it. It is different from other good causes such as
arts, sports and heritage, which are more narrowly prescribed areas.
Without the ability to prescribe types of expenditure, the fund would
be given 50 per cent. of all the lottery good cause money to spend on
anything that is charitable or connected with health, education or the
environment, without further recourse to Parliament. We did not believe
that to be sensible. That is why we sought the power to set out at the
highest level the types of expenditure that the fund should focus
on.
The order
reflects our policy to adopt a less prescriptive approach with the Big
Lottery Fund than we did with the New Opportunities Fund. It sets out
only broad and high level themes of funding. In contrast, NOF orders
often set out relatively narrow funding initiatives, detailing the
specific outcomes to be achieved and the way in which those outcomes
should be achieved. Under this order and the accompanying policy
directions, which we have also made available to the House, the Big
Lottery Fund and not the Government will make all the important
decisions.
The fund
will have sole responsibility for deciding on programmes,
choosing delivery mechanisms, identifying partners and selecting
projects. I must stress that less prescription does not mean a lack of
clarity. The terms used within the order are understood by the fund and
the wider voluntary and community sector that it funds.
We consulted widely with
lottery stakeholders on the interim orders and directions issued to NOF
last year, which are almost identical to this order, and on the draft
directions to be issued by the Big Lottery Fund. Furthermore, they are
identical to the illustrative big lottery fund order and directions we
made available during the passage of the 2006 Act. Therefore, on this
occasion we were conscious of the need to avoid consultation fatigue,
which we have been accused of on
a number of occasions, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr.
Foster) knows, given his contribution to the
Financial Times the
other day, but we will leave that as an aside. We did not think another
full consultation was warranted, although I have no doubt that the hon.
Gentleman will tell us it was, and we agreed with those outside who
live in the real world rather than those who debate such points in the
House.
We
have therefore limited consultation this time to the statutory
requirements, the Big Lottery Fund and the devolved administrations. I
must stress, however, that we remain committed to our policy of
increasing transparency as we move forward to the Big Lottery
Fund.
It is important
to keep in mind why we are introducing this order. It is needed so that
the Big Lottery Fund can fund its new programmes. The fund hopes to
launch all of its new programmes by the end of the year. The new
programmes reflect two rounds of public consultation and as they are
developed, the fund will continue to involve stakeholders.
Underpinning all programmes is
the fund's mission to improve communities and the lives of the people
who most need it. Programmes deliver the funding themes set out in this
order. They will also help achieve the four outcomes and the funding
priorities set out in the policy directions.
The fund has said that it will
distribute no less than one third of funds via demand-led programmes,
which encourage organisations and groups to advance their own ideas and
local solutions for funding. It has also given an undertaking that 60
to 70 per cent. of its funding will go directly to voluntary and
community sector organisations.
This statutory instrument will
allow the Big Lottery Fund to continue to fund its new programmes and
distribute money to deserving projects all over the UK. I commend it to
the House.
The
Chairman: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing
the order. Before I call the Opposition spokesman, I point out to
members of the Committee that the draft order is what I would describe
as fairly narrow. From the Chair’s point of view, it would be
difficult to have a sensible debate on this order without perhaps
raising, en passant, the more general issue of how money from the
lottery is being used. I am not tempting members of the Committee to
launch into detail, but I am prepared to use my discretion from the
Chair to have a slightly wider debate than the order might in normal
circumstances
allow.
4.39
pm
Mr.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): May I
associate Opposition Members with the kind comments made about
Mr. Cranmer on his impending retirement? Who
knows—given the rush of statutory instruments in the last week
of term, there may be one or two more to come before his retirement is
upon us. I also, Sir Nicholas, assume that the rumour about your
impending retirement to make way for one of the A-list Conservative
candidates is entirely without foundation.
The
Chairman: Order. It is entirely without
foundation—not a word of truth in
it.
Mr.
Field: The fortunes of your home football club in
Macclesfield are much maligned, Sir Nicholas, but if it is not Paul
Ince, it will have to be you who rescues it in the months
ahead.
As the
Minister pointed out, the order reflects what is in the 2006 Act and
the indicative policy directions that were issued during its passage.
There is nothing new in the order, which simply implements what
Parliament has already agreed to do, which is to provide for devolved
expenditure and to require the fund to set up committees to oversee
that
spending.
I
repeat the point that we made umpteen times during the passage of the
2006 Act, which is that we have always strongly disagreed with the way
in which general Government expenditure has been taken out of lottery
funding. One of the relatively few policy announcements that the
Conservative party has made in advance of the next
election—[Hon. Members:
“Oh!”] This will warm hon. Members’ hearts on both
sides of the Committee. One of those policy announcements is that we
shall ring-fence the lottery. The idea is that the £3.2 billion
that has been lost over the past nine years out of arts, heritage,
charities and sports will be returned to those heads. It is therefore
with some disappointment that we heard the Minister making it clear
that moneys would be put aside for the promotion of physical and mental
well-being, community safety and cohesion, and community learning,
which we regard as general Government expenditure.
My only other point is about
article 4(3), which
says:
“The
maximum amount that may be distributed by the Fund before 1st April
2008...shall be £140 million.”
I assume that the
matter was relatively straightforward, but on what basis was that sum
calculated? The Minister went into some detail about the importance of
the wide discretion, which we support, as the provisions should be not
over-prescriptive. We have made it clear that there has been too much
Government and ministerial prescription in that regard.
One of the advantages that has
flowed to the lottery in recent years is the idea of a multitude of
different distributors. Having a single distributor has not necessarily
produced economies of scale. Time and again we have expressed the worry
that giving the Big Lottery Fund control of 50 per cent. of the moneys
that go to good causes means that it is effectively a sole distributor.
The range of distribution has allowed a healthy sense of competition
among a number of locally-focused causes that the lottery has supported
over the past decade or so. In having such a gargantuan organisation
controlling many billions of pounds over the course of any one
Parliament, I hope that the Minister will give at least some credence
to ensuring a range of distribution. However, with those one or two
minor issues, we would be happy for the order to be passed without
further
delay.
4.44
pm
Mr.
Don Foster (Bath) (LD): I begin by joining you, Sir
Nicholas, the Minister and the hon. Member for Cities of London and
Westminster (Mr. Field) in praising today’s Clerk,
Frank Cranmer. You were looking in this
direction when the hon. Gentleman was speaking, Sir Nicholas,
but I can assure you that our Clerk’s face was a picture when
the hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a large number of
statutory instruments still to come before Mr.
Cranmer’s retirement—but it was a picture of somebody who
has been a great servant of the House over many years. I have benefited
from his advice and help on numerous occasions and I should
like to join other hon. Members in paying tribute to
him.
I was delighted
that the Minister explained the reasons why we were here. He said in
his peroration that the purpose of the order was to allow the Big
Lottery Fund to continue its programmes. However, as Committee members
know, the Big Lottery Fund does not exist; it will not exist until 1
December 2006, when the order that we are debating comes into force.
The fact that the Big Lottery Fund does not exist at the moment has not
prevented the Minister from telling us lots of things about what it
already does—and it has not prevented the Big Lottery Fund, or
Big as we are now to call it, from producing T-shirts, mugs and having
its own headed
notepaper.
The
excellent chairman of Big, Sir Clive Booth, always tells me that his
family get upset with me whenever I say how excellent he is. However, I
genuinely believe him to be an excellent chairman of Big. More than two
years ago, Sir Clive rightly said that the days of the Government
instructing lottery distributors about what to do are over. I am
delighted that he believes that and I hope it will be so when the Big
Lottery Fund is formally
established.
In that
regard, and in respect of how money is spent—the subject of this
order—I was a bit taken aback by some of the humbug from the
hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who said that the
first manifesto pledge of the Conservative party for the next general
election, if in Government, would be to leave the distributors alone.
This is the same Conservative party—the one that does not
believe in instructing anybody about what to do—that in 2001
said that lottery funds would be
used
“to provide
assistance to Local Authority controlled museums and galleries in
forming endowed self-governing Trusts where this is
appropriate.”
Much more
recently, in March 2005, it
said:
“We will
ensure that village halls and community facilities receive greater
support by making them an explicit priority for the Lottery Community
Fund”.
