| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 2:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government's amendments in this group concern the proposed reserve power to reallocate an excessive National Lottery Distribution Fund balance from a lottery distributing body to another body. This power was the subject of extensive debate both in Committee and on Report. On both occasions I assured the House, as have my ministerial colleagues in another place, that the Government would seek to use the proposed new
23 May 2006 : Column 702
power only as a last resort against a distributor which had failed over an extended period to tackle an excessive balance, and which had refused to take steps to manage that balance down to a reasonable level.
Let me emphasise the point. To get into such a dismal position, a distributor would need to have ignored not just the Government's guidance, but the recommendations of the National Audit Office and of the Public Accounts Committee in another place, both of which have addressed those issues. At present, I see no distributor as being in a position where we would consider exercising the proposed reallocation power against it. They are just not working that way.
As the reallocation power is framed in the Bill, the Secretary of State would not be able to exercise it without first consulting the bodies from which and to which it was proposed that a sum would be reallocated. The Secretary of State would also be obliged to consult the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Borrie was particularly helpful on Report when he emphasised that, as he saw the Bill, there was nothing to prevent the Secretary of State consulting more widely if she so wished. On Report, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield tabled an amendment seeking to create specific provision to require the Secretary of State to consult more widely any other person whom she thought appropriate. That was an amendment that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham tabled in Committee.
In responding to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield on Report, I acknowledged that there would indeed be legitimate wider interest in any proposed use of the reallocation power. However, I also pointed out that, as any use of the new power would be subject to affirmative resolution, there would be no question of the Government being able, somehow, to exercise the power in secret or without giving people time to make representations. It is in the nature of the issues that if we had provision that an affirmative resolution would be necessary for this to be carried through, of course people would be fully aware of what was going on, and the Secretary of State's decision would be subject to parliamentary consideration.
Nevertheless, I undertook to consider this issue in the light of the broad consensus across the House on the matter. Today I am saying that the Government can agree to include such a provision to require the Secretary of State to consult any such bodies as she thinks appropriate before she can exercise the reserve power to reallocate balances. Therefore, I hope it will be recognised that the Government have seen the strength of opinion across the House. We thought we had got the position right. We never thought for one moment that this was a hole-in-the-corner exercise, but one that would be subject to the fullest public debate and the affirmation of Parliament through
23 May 2006 : Column 703
resolutions of both Houses. However, I can accept the position that was advocated on Report, which is why I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling the amendment and, in their absence, I express the gratitude of the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham and the Bishop of Sheffield, who, as the Minister mentioned, spoke at earlier stages of the Bill in favour of such an amendment. I express my satisfaction with the assurances given by the Minister in Committee and on Report that the intention of the Government to consult appropriate bodies widely if and when balances are transferred will be written into law. I assure the Minister and the House that that will be a comfort and assurance to many organisations that are in receipt of lottery funds, not least the Church and its representative bodies, such as the Council for the Care of Churches, the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England and the Church Heritage Forum.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate's remarks and those made in earlier debates by other right reverend Prelates. I am grateful to the Minister. He gracefully backed off from the Government's previous position and bowed to the concerns of the Bishops' Bench and its implacable logic.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 3:
(e) such other persons (if any) as he thinks appropriate."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Distributing bodies: publicity]:
Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, line 4, leave out "National Lottery in general."" and insert "distribution of money under this Act.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government are bringing forward this amendment to meet concerns expressed by some noble Lords that new Section 25E(c), which is inserted by Clause 11, as it was previously drafted,
might be taken to be giving lottery distributors powers to encourage people to play the lottery. As I pointed out during previous stages of the Bill, there was no such intention on the Government's part. Our reason for including this provision was because we needed to make clear that lottery distributors have the power to encourage participation in activities related to promotion of the lottery good-causes funding, such as National Lottery Day and the National Lottery Awards. We think that is important. Such activities have more success in getting across the message about how lottery money has been used if more people get involved. That was the intention of the Government: to demonstrate the purpose of the National Lottery to
23 May 2006 : Column 704
people and to encourage appreciation of it among people who contribute so much to the National Lottery. That is different from merely publishing information about how the good-cause money is spent, although still related entirely to the good-cause funding.
As I mentioned on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, had written to me thanking me for explaining the reason for the new subsection and saying that he was content with the Government's proposals. But I appreciated that there was evidence on Report that other noble Lords still had concerns. Therefore, I am pleased to table this amendment, which makes quite clear that the encouragement activity is restricted to,
that is, to the good-cause funding. I trust that noble Lords will accept that that was always the Government's intention. We have now made it clearer and more explicit and I hope that the House will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving Amendment No. 4. I agree with him; I do not think it was ever thought that the Government's intention was otherwise. We were arguing simply about the precise use of the words in Clause 11. We on these Benches very much support the general purpose of the clause, so I am delighted that the Minister has come back with an amendment of this kind. This means that Members on both sides of the House can agree that the implementation of the clause will be greatly to the benefit of the lottery projects.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I was absent from Report by virtue of being in Killarney, so was not in a position to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, move the relevant amendment, to which the Minister has in effect responded in speaking to Amendment No. 4. I have no problem with the amendment that the noble Lord moved on Report, nor do I have any problem with this one, but he said then that the clause was designed in essence to ensure that the National Lottery distributors took a greater part in publicising aspects of the National Lottery. Personally, I would have wanted Clause 11 to place stronger obligations on the distributors, because the current wording, which is permissive rather than statutory, does not seem to ensure that action is taken. But we live in an imperfect world, and the Bill will have to go on the statute book without that extra degree of compulsion.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |