| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Let me now move to the meat of this debate; the effect on heritage and the arts and other good causes of the transfer of lottery funds to the Olympics. The first thing to say is that the Government have always been entirely clear since deciding to support London’s Olympic bid that money raised from the lottery would be a key part of the funding package. A number of points have to be made that I hope will reassure the arts and other good causes and meet some of their concerns, as well as answering some of the concerns raised today.
We have agreed with the Big Lottery Fund that resources for the small, voluntary and community sector will be protected. This means that the sector will still receive at least the amount implied by the Big Lottery Fund’s earlier commitment—around £2 billion. The NCVO has welcomed this, but clearly not the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
The other distributors are also concerned that support for small-scale and voluntary-sector projects remains available. We have heard that 50 per cent—£210 million—of the Arts Council’s grant in aid funding already goes to smaller organisations and projects and that trend has continued.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Olympic Park and repayment to the lottery. The Government will make sure that lottery good causes will have first call on any profits that come from the sale of the Olympic Park after the Games, so a share of money going to the Olympics will return to lottery funds after the Games. A number of noble Lords have asked about that—questions that I absolutely agree with—and we will be providing more information to firm up that proposal.
In his book Creative Britain published in 1998, my noble friend Lord Smith of Finsbury made the following point, which was also made today by several Peers:
“We must not forget the enormous importance that will still remain for support from the private sector. Arts organisations derive their funding from a range of sources, starting, of course, with their audiences, at the box-office. Additional backing is and must be a partnership between private support and sponsorship, and public subsidy. That partnership is vital”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, spoke eloquently about that issue and the matter was raised in a positive way by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, but characterised by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, as just getting money from rich philanthropists. The partnership has happened and the proof is that the private sector invested £529.5 million in culture during 2005-06.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, earlier this month, the Tate held a gala dinner in New York. That charity has raised $81 million in cash donations. The Tate generates 67p for every grant-in-aid pound.
The Royal Opera House only last week received £10 million from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. But it is not only the big arts organisations that are raising money from sources other than the Government or the lottery. The Watermill Theatre in Berkshire is an excellent example: this small producing theatre represents a classic case of successful plural funding. The theatre’s Save the Watermill appeal is to raise £3 million capital funding. In less than two years, the theatre has raised £2,300,000 from private sources and £200,000 from Arts Council England: South East.
My noble friend Lord Rosser made a point about Sport England in relation to private funding and it is a point well made. There is a temporary diversion of some lottery funds towards Olympics-related projects and there are also, of course, other sources of project funding for entrepreneurial, dynamic arts organisations however large or small.
I should like to say a few words about the lottery. It is a success story, raising around £1.4 billion for good causes every year. Figures released last year showed that the National Lottery returned more to society than any other lottery in the world. It is cost-efficient, innovative and reliable. In the previous financial year, more than 35 per cent of revenue was generated through innovations and channels introduced since the start of the second lottery licence. The funding plan for dedicated Olympic lottery games is ahead of schedule, beating the sales forecast in both the first two years of the plan. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned, one way in which to mitigate the decrease in revenues for other good causes is to maximise the overall size of the lottery cake. It is also the Government’s intention—this clears up some confusion—that existing lottery projects need not be affected and that none of the money will be transferred until 2009. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner.
There has been much discussion about the Cultural Olympiad. In their bid to host the Olympic Games in 2012, the Government set out their aspiration to develop a cultural programme alongside the sporting elements of the Games. From the closing ceremony of the Beijing 2008 Olympics, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coe, the UK will commence its Cultural Olympiad, a developing four-year period of cultural activity. The Cultural Olympiad is intended to encapsulate the widest possible range of culture from the arts, museums and galleries, to the historic and built environment, to libraries and archives, to the moving and digital image, from the biggest institutions to the smallest community groups. My right honourable friend Tessa Jowell made an absolute commitment in Liverpool two days ago. She said:
As we have heard, the Heritage Lottery Fund will contribute a total of £161 million. This means that there should still be left over £700 million of new lottery money for the fund between 2009 and 2012. The Arts Council England will contribute a total of £112.5 million. This means that there will be £500 million of new lottery money for the council between 2009 and 2012. The period of the Arts Council England supporting very large-scale capital grants has come to an end, which means that there is now a focus on smaller grants to organisations and individuals. This fact may go some way to answer some of the genuine concerns we have heard today. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
I should like to deal with a number of points that came up. As I said, I cannot answer all the points but a few themes must be confronted. Many noble Lords asked whether I could promise that no more lottery money will be diverted. The new Olympics budget has been rigorously and independently assessed. We have put in place rigorous cost-control measures. We believe that this is a robust package. It is not inevitable that costs will rise and—this is a crucial point—the inclusion of a £2.7 billion contingency means that, should the need arise, the funds are available to meet it.
I will come back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, made in a moment. A number of noble Lords have talked about the Comprehensive Spending Review, and the double whammy of losing money to the lottery and the spending review being just around the corner. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot say anything about the next spending review, but many points have been made, and they will be noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Marland, asked whether the new lottery games for the Olympics are damaging the good causes. Non-Olympic good causes may lose on average about 5 per cent of their income as a result of sales diversion. The new lottery games are on course, as I said earlier, to raise £750 million towards the cost of the Olympics. On the renewal of the licence, the winner of the new lottery licence will be announced by the National Lottery Commission in the summer, and an announcement of the preferred bidder is expected next month.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, talked very interestingly about Scotland and asked what the impact will be in Scotland. The cash contribution of the arts, including film, in Scotland to the 2012 Games will be around £15 million. However, there should still be more than £60 million for the arts, including film, in Scotland between 2009 and 2012. There should still be more than £410 million of new lottery money for Scotland between 2009 and 2012. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about the Heritage Lottery Fund. He may be encouraged to hear that the HLF expects to absorb the impact of Olympic funding over time, rather than make deeper short-term cuts. That means that there will be less impact on its customers, and it will still be able to provide support to the full range of heritage activities. Between now and 2019, HLF expects to distribute £1.9 billion to the heritage sector, some £180 million a year from 2009 and beyond, and it has also given a reassurance that those projects already-promised grants will be absolutely safe.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, interestingly, asked about what will happen to the contingency. Some £2.3 million would be met from Exchequer funds; the balance of half a billion pounds is to be met from the lottery. The lottery sum is already in the revised figures that were announced a few weeks ago, so if it is not spent, it will simply stay with the lottery. Obviously, it would be rather too much to expect Exchequer funds to pay money to the arts if the contingency is not used. There is an interesting note about the contingency and matters around it, which I will pass to the noble Lord after our debate.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the words of our next Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, speaking at the Brighton festival last Sunday. Much has been said about the present Prime Minister’s views on the arts, as expressed in his speech. Gordon Brown spoke of wanting to achieve two things; first, properly to fund the arts:
“I do intend to make sure that what happens over the next period is not detrimental to the arts and will not allow the fact that we are having an Olympic Games to come in the way of the arts”.
The second thing that he wants to achieve is that every young person and every school child gets access to the arts and gets a chance to learn about the great range of culture, from music to drama, and everything else.
This has been an extremely interesting debate. I conclude by saying that we were delighted to win the Olympic Games for our country. It will give huge pleasure and benefit to the people of Britain and it will help and encourage sport and the arts. It will leave a massive legacy of great benefit to all our citizens, and the Paralympic Games, which have not been mentioned today, will provide a showcase for some of the bravest and most talented people in our country. That in itself is a worthwhile objective.
5 pm
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Our old friendship remains intact. He has defended the indefensible and excused the inexcusable. That is all right. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Every Peer expressed concern, alarm and despondency about the effect of moving £675 million away from the lottery into the London Olympics: my noble friend Lord Luce on the arts; the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on Sport England; the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on art in prisons; my noble friends Lord Inglewood and Lord Caithness on historic houses and castles; the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on railway heritage; the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, on museums; the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on churches and cathedrals; and my noble friend Lady Hooper on heritage and charities.
We also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, about the continuing difficulty of raising money from business to support the arts. She will be aware that not only is that difficult and somewhat depressing but that in some areas of the country—the east Midlands, West Midlands and the fenlands—there has been a decline in business support for the arts in the past three years.
I have three messages for the Government and the Minister. First, you have taken £675 million. No more must be taken. There would be public outrage if more money was raided from the Lottery funds to support the Olympics. A huge amount has been transferred, which will harm a whole range of activities. Secondly, regarding the loan that we heard about, Tessa Jowell says that the money will all come back. Most loans are accompanied by a guarantee. I see the Minister nodding. If he could rise at the Dispatch Box now and say, on behalf of the Government, that he will guarantee that that £675 will be repaid—
Lord Baker of Dorking: I should have said £675 million; it will be “billion” next time. That would be a meaningful guarantee, but, of course he cannot get up to say that.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was that when the Olympic Park is sold, money will come back to the lottery. I said that a number of legitimate questions had been asked by his noble friend Lord Marland regarding the details of the arrangement. They were absolutely legitimate and important questions and I said that we would provide the sort of detail that any business person would expect for an arrangement such as this.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, that takes us a bit further and I am encouraged. The phrase that the noble Lord used in his speech was “temporary diversion of money”. That means that a timescale has been imposed on it, and that when that time is over and the Olympics are over, it will be diverted back to us.
Finally, I urge the Minister: please listen to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury. He left the culture department with an enhanced reputation—an almost impossible task for any Minister who has held that role. He said very clearly that enough is enough. I heard the words of Gordon Brown that were quoted by the Minister at the end of his speech; and I hope that Gordon Brown notices them after the regime change. It is up to Gordon Brown to ensure that there is no cut for arts in the spending round this year. That will be his test. All the arts and heritage bodies expect a cut. If it is frozen, it is a cut. We very much expect the Chancellor to redeem what he said in Brighton last week by increasing spending on those bodies. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.
The Lord Speaker: Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Motion?
Lord Baker of Dorking: Oh yes, my Lords, I will, but we can do it all again if you want. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2007
5.05 pm
rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29 March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I shall provide some background to these regulations which amend the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001 to enable the Chief Electoral Officer—CEO—for Northern Ireland to request information from specified local and public authorities in Northern Ireland for the purpose of meeting his registration objectives.
The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 removed the legal obligation on the CEO to conduct an annual canvass in Northern Ireland and made provision for a system of more extensive and targeted continuous updating of the electoral register. In particular, Section 7 of the Act enables regulations to be made that give the CEO the power to obtain information from local and public authorities to help him to meet his registration objectives. As the registration officer for all constituencies in Northern Ireland, with responsibility for maintaining the electoral register in Northern Ireland, the CEO’s objectives—set out in Section 10ZB of the Representation of the People Act 1983—are
the following three things: every person who is entitled to be registered in a register is registered in it; that no person who is not entitled to be registered in a register is registered in it; and, finally, that none of the required information relating to any person registered in a register is false.
In order to assist the registration officer in meeting the registration objectives under the new system of continuous updating of the electoral register, the regulations before us now will enable him to request information for the purposes of ensuring that the register is accurate and comprehensive. This information will include names and addresses, dates of births and deaths, and national insurance numbers, which will be used to identify duplicate or invalid entries on the register. It will help him to track changes in the circumstances of individuals on the register, such as their surname and address; to identify people not on the register but who are entitled to be; and to track the point at which “attainers”—individuals aged 16 or 17—will become eligible to be registered.
The bodies from which the CEO will be able to request information under the regulations are district councils; the Registrar General of Births and Deaths in Northern Ireland; the Northern Ireland Central Services Agency; the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; and the Department of Work and Pensions. The DWP is cited instead of the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency because it centrally holds the information that will be requested by the CEO. The DWP is cited in the existing regulations and this system works well.
The regulations do not require bodies to disclose information which came into their possession before these regulations come into force, although they are not prevented from doing so. This is because we do not have the power to give the regulations retrospective effect. In addition to this, we wished to ensure that the CEO did not receive old information. Regulation 1(4) will ensure that the CEO receives information which is relevant and appropriate and not out of date. Of course, before these regulations come into force it is open to the CEO to use his existing powers to obtain information. These regulations have been developed in conjunction with the CEO to ensure that they will enable him to exercise his powers as effectively as possible on the ground. He and his staff are entirely committed to using the new powers contained in these regulations to preserve the high level of accuracy that has characterised the electoral register in Northern Ireland as a result of the improvements brought about by the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, while increasing its comprehensiveness. They will also enable him specifically to target traditionally unrepresented groups, to ensure that as many people as possible in Northern Ireland from all social and economic groups are registered to vote.
It will be for the CEO to determine the operational steps which he will take to do this. He has the knowledge and experience necessary to determine how the powers contained in these regulations should be used to produce the best results. I know that he intends to be very proactive and is keen to begin exercising his new powers as soon as possible. I hope that noble Lords can agree with the regulations, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29 March be approved. 15th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument to your Lordships’ House today. In principle, we support it. There has been considerable debate and work over the past six or seven years on the electoral situation in Northern Ireland, particularly the rules and regulations of the electoral register. As far as I can make out—I spoke to officials about this—the instrument consists purely of further amendments to update and improve what is already an excellent system.
I have one question for the Minister. In a debate on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, we discussed how often we were going to force electors to re-register. It was then once every year, and it is now once every 10 years. Does that still stand? I would like to think so.
Having said that, the present order certainly improves the detail. The officials and departments in government responsible for elections in England, Wales and Scotland—recent elections have been a total shambles for the democratic process—could learn a lot of lessons from the electoral processes, and their rules and regulations, in Northern Ireland. A great deal of thought has been given to them. The spotlight was on Northern Ireland for all sorts of reasons, because of the great saying “Vote early and vote often”, dead people voting, people not yet born voting and the like. That has been 99.9 per cent cured. One’s national insurance number is now on the register, photographic evidence of who you are is necessary and so on. I know that the Government refused to have national insurance numbers on the British registry, and think that they were wrong. Having said that, which I appreciate probably has little to do with this particular statutory instrument, I support the regulations.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument. Broadly speaking, we support it. I cannot help observing that—apart from the hybrid noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, who is in some manifestations a Briton and others an Ulsterman—there are no Members in your Lordships’ House from Northern Ireland. I would have expected at least one or two of them to be here.
I also concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about the clean way that elections now take place in Northern Ireland. Both our Benches supported and pushed through the insurance number provision which with hindsight—and certainly in comparison with Scotland—shows how valuable that was. Also, as a result of their long experience of rigged and now clean elections, the good people of Northern Ireland can understand how to vote, whatever the system. Other regions of the United Kingdom have a lot of catching up to do.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |