The
Chairman: Order. I was tempted to rise a little earlier
when the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) used the word
“humbug”, which I believe borders on unparliamentary
language. The hon. Gentleman is a very gracious man. I am sure that he
will start to direct his remarks to the order, not the Conservative
Opposition, and perhaps he will say that he did not mean
it.
Mr.
Foster: Thank you, Sir Nicholas, you put it so kindly. Of
course, I am more than happy to remove any reference to the word
“humbug”.
Mr.
Caborn: Chocolate button.
Mr.
Foster: That is not quite what I had in mind to replace
“humbug”. It is a little bit rich for a Conservative
party spokesman to claim that there will not be interference when his
party has listed a large number of instructions. I was only beginning a
lengthy list of instructions that the Conservative party would
give on how lottery money was to be used. However, I take note of what
you say, Sir Nicholas, and will not go through the entire
list. It is important
to note that, during the passage of the Bill to which this
statutory instrument relates, there was much debate about
additionality. I think that all hon. Members were delighted that, when
the Bill went to the House of Lords, the Government were eventually
willing to agree that each of the lottery distributors, including the
Big Lottery Fund, would, in respect of the House’s concerns
about additionality, report annually to Parliament as to how it
determined the way in which funds would be distributed. That was very
welcome indeed. I was pleased that the Minister made it clear in his
remarks that the only instructions to come from Government to the Big
Lottery Fund once it is up and running on 1 December will be high-level
instructions, as he described them, about such broad matters.
It is right and proper that
that should be so. We were concerned during the passage of the Bill to
ensure that at no point do we return to a situation in which the
Government of the day, whichever party they might be, can give the sort
of detailed instructions that the Minister generously acknowledged were
given by the present Government to the New Opportunities
Fund. Sir Nicholas,
you will be well aware that the New Opportunities Fund still exists. It
will end only when the order comes into effect. I therefore ask the
Minister whether it will be the responsibility of the Big Lottery Fund,
in addition to everything in the order, to sort out any problems that
might arise in relation to the New Opportunities Fund. I refer him
particularly to my old favourite, the fund for PE and sports. I am not
sure where in the statutory instrument the issue is covered. Which of
these broad headings cover it? He might be able to help me on
that. In particular,
can the Minister confirm that even as we speak, after the deadline has
long passed, only 50 per cent. of the money in the fund has
been spent, even though we were told that it would all be spent by the
end of March this year? Can he also confirm that some money still
remains in the fund—I acknowledge that it is a relatively small
amount, possibly in the order of £10 million—that has not
even been allocated yet to the purposes for which the fund was
established? That
said, the order is sensible. It covers much of the ground covered
during the passage of the legislation establishing the New
Opportunities Fund. Therefore, I hope that we will not have to trouble
the Committee with a Division. It is common sense. I am grateful for
the way that the Minister introduced it. Sir Nicholas, I hope that he
has noted that I have not risen to the bait on the issue of
consultation, about which he and I have corresponded recently in the
Financial Times, because I did not wish to incur your wrath by
going out of
order.
4.53
pm Mr.
Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Nicholas. I hope
that it will not be the
last. Notwithstanding
the criticism of the money leaking from the Big Lottery Fund for other
purposes than those for which it was intended, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned, I applaud some
of the fund’s excellent projects, from which many of our
constituents have benefited. For example—I have picked out just
a few—2,100 new village halls have been built as a result of the
Big Lottery Fund, an extra £850 million has been spent on new
sporting facilities, which is superb, and 39,000 world war two veterans
have been able to journey back to the battlefields. Many of us
appreciate that. I am
also pleased to see that the new legislation will give small community
groups and self-help groups an opportunity to access funds for
regeneration projects as well as social enterprises. I seek the
Minister’s guidance, though, on how he will respond when it
comes to a public outcry against a project funded by the Big Lottery
Fund, in light of the new Act stating that the fund needs only to take
account of rather than comply with directions from the Secretary of
State. I should be interested to hear his
comments. 4.54
pm Mark
Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) (Lab): I am grateful, Sir
Nicholas, for an opportunity to say one or two things. As you will have
noticed, there is general consensus in the Committee on the excellent
work that the lottery has done, from which I do not dissent. Tribute
should be paid to my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has been
responsible for the matter for a number of years and must therefore
take some of the credit for the good work. Equally, it is important to
remind my right hon. Friend that concerns about additionality are not
confined to the Opposition. They are held in all parts of the House and
the Committee. When the lottery was set up it was generally agreed that
it would be extra to Government policy and strategy. Although it has
done many good things in all our constituencies and throughout the
country over the years, there is no doubt that the principle of
additionality has been severely eroded. That has often happened in good
causes, but it is a cause of considerable
concern. The
most radical erosion of the principle in recent years has been the way
in which lottery funding has been directed towards the Olympics.
Everybody in the country is delighted that the Government and the
London Organising Committee were successful in winning the Olympics for
us, but if it is something from which the whole country will benefit,
surely the Government should support it rather than raid the lottery.
That applies to all sport, which everybody wants to be developed. The
way in which sport and the Olympics are said to be diverting money from
the Heritage Lottery Fund is regrettable. Despite the extremely good
work that the lottery has done for the heritage of the country, we have
considerable problems and challenges in protecting it. It is sad to see
lottery funding being diverted from that large agenda.
Having said that, I add that we
agree about the excellence of the lottery. It has been a great
achievement of Governments of both parties in the past 15 years.
However, fears that it is becoming more and more a creature of
Government are genuine and held across the House. I know that the
Minister is only too aware of them and sensitive to them, but on
occasions such as this he should be reminded of them. I hope that he
will bear them in mind as he develops the lottery strategy over the
next few
years. 4.58
pm Mr.
Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): I wish to
comment on one aspect of lottery funding over the years. A letter in
today’s Daily Record mentions the issue that I wish to
raise: the loss of many people’s Christmas hampers because of
Farepak going into administration. The hon. Member for Bath
(Mr. Foster) indicated that some £10 million is
floating about unused, and there is a lot of unclaimed money for which
prize winners have not come forward. Some £2 million has been
left outstanding in the past few weeks. Is it possible under the order
to look favourably at the poor people whose Christmases will be
wasted?
The
Chairman: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I
have a great deal of regard, that I do not believe his comments have
been totally relevant. I indicated that I was using discretion, and I
have been particularly generous to somebody from north of the
border. 4.59
pm Mr.
Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con): I do not want to break
the general consensus and good nature of our consideration of the
order, but I wish to make three brief points. The first is that when I
go around my constituency I see a number of village halls and sports
facilities that have benefited from large grants from the national
lottery. Secondly, I should like to concentrate on article 3, which
refers to small grants and awards for all. The issue is important for
constituencies such as mine, with lots of small villages and small
local groups. Last
Saturday I spent a delightful afternoon as a guest of the Witchampton
women’s institute in my constituency. It had just won an awards
for all grant for a project that it had conducted during last year as
part of the women’s institute’s 90th anniversary, which
involved 12 country walks. Witchampton women’s institute had
turned the project into a book, which has been published with the help
of awards for all and will raise funds for the
branch. I mention that
because although the grant was for only a few thousand pounds and
therefore a small award, it was for a group of just 17 ladies in a
small village in my constituency who had none the less demonstrated a
tremendous amount of community effort. If the national lottery can
focus as much on those small groups as it does on the much larger,
headline-grabbing projects, it is to be
commended. My third
point, which has already been mentioned, is about the issue of
additionality and ensuring that national lottery funds are not diverted
to subsidise Government expenditure. The national lottery is
additional. The people who buy tickets every week do
so in the hope that that money will be used for good causes and not to
prop up ailing programmes of Government expenditure. That is important,
so I seek the Minister’s assurance that that will also be
Government policy going
forward. 5.2
pm
Mr.
Caborn: It would be interesting to know how many statutory
instrument Committees our Clerk has been responsible for during his
career— [Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Order. Are we getting the
answer?
Mark
Fisher: I apologise, Sir
Nicholas.
Mr.
Caborn: I think that my hon. Friend has his computer on
there. After
the huge amount of debate that took place on being at arm’s
length from the Government, I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for
Cities of London and Westminster talking about ring-fencing the lottery
and putting the funding into various schemes dictated by politicians.
That would run absolutely contrary to what the order is about, which is
to ensure at least that we respond to the public, even though
politicians give the high-level direction. There has been a wide
consultation, and I believe that the people’s money—which
is what the lottery is—goes on what people want. That is why we
took a lot of care over the consultation, which lasted for a long
period, and why the 2006 Act commands the support that it
does.
Mr.
Foster: On that point, has the Minister received any
feedback from the trial scheme, your pound, your choice? I appreciate
that the scheme was a trial, but it gave an opportunity to find out
what the public involvement led to and what ideas the public have come
up
with.
Mr.
Caborn: I have not received any feedback yet, but I have
no doubt that we will ensure that it is available to hon. Members in
the
Library. The
hon. Gentleman referred to the NOF for PE and sport. On the issue of
additionality, I make just one point about the NOF’s funding for
sport. One interesting feature is that moneys from the lottery were
used to develop the school sports co-ordinator programme, which is an
important part of involving young people in physical activity and
sport. The initial programme was partly funded by the lottery, which
enabled it to be trialled for three years before being taken into
mainstream Government spending. That was a useful way of proving a
scheme to be effective, and afterwards it could be taken over by the
Government. Although hon. Members will argue the case that it is not
additional to Government spending, a number of schemes could be
identified that the lottery has enabled to get off the ground, and
which were afterwards funded by mainstream Government
spending. That raises
the question of additionality. We have gone as far as possible in
ensuring that all distributors will now be accountable to Parliament,
in that they will
have to give annual reports with reasons for additionality of funding
for the previous year. Those reports can then be the subject of
questioning by any Member, either in Committee or on the Floor, through
the various mechanisms that are available to Members. That is not to
say that that procedure was included in the Bill—we did not want
to make things into a lawyers’ paradise, and we were counselled
that going down the route that some people wanted us to go down would
have resulted in that. Nevertheless, the system now includes
accountability, and I hope that that will allay fears in the
future. Additionality,
and the way in which the debate on it has been conducted, have
distracted from value for money and from the lottery joining up with
other lottery funding, public funding, and private sector funding. Many
of the lottery distributors have been looking over their shoulders
saying, “Is this the additionality?” and that has
resulted in things being departmentalised. I hope that we can now have
a new debate, given the transparency resulting from the annual report,
and that that will enable us to take the lottery forward with
confidence, and allow it to work with other funding streams so that
additional value can be obtained from lottery
funding.
Mr.
Wilson: I am pleased that the Minister says that there
will be an annual report and that there will be the chance to ask
questions about it, but will all the lottery distributors adhere to a
common framework for the
report?
Mr.
Caborn: It would be stupid for them to do so, because
additionality for heritage will be different from that for sport. They
should use their common sense. They will have to go through a learning
curve and Members will put them under scrutiny, but I do not want to
prescribe from the centre how they should make their report on
additionality. It is up to them. They know their terms of reference and
they should respond in the annual report on additionality as they do on
other issues. My hon.
Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) made an
important point on additionality and spoke about how the Olympics could
deny resources to heritage. I remind him that one of the biggest
investments in heritage was probably through the Millennium Commission,
which was set up as a fund whose income would derive from the lottery
for a limited period of time. By definition, that time was the
millennium. The Olympics will cease as an operation in 2012, or just
beyond; the Millennium Commission will cease to operate in November.
The concept, though, is a sensible way of maximising the impact of the
lottery. The Millennium Commission resulted in the Eden project, Tate
Modern and many other investments in art and heritage. There was that
opportunity at the time of the millennium. On 6 July 2005, when the
announcement on the Olympics was made in Singapore by Jacques Rogge,
there was an outburst of tremendous optimism in the nation. That kind
of thing is exactly what the lottery funds are for. Many recent
Olympics have been funded in part by the lotteries of various cities
and nations. Munich is a classic example, because although,
unfortunately, we know what it is remembered for, the heritage of the
Munich Olympic
park, which was funded by a lottery in Munich town, stands as a great
symbol, not just for the Olympics, but for how lottery funding should
be used. I say to my
hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that heritage has
not been lost; far from it. Lottery funding for the millennium, for
example, has provided considerable investment into the heritage of our
nation.
| 
