| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we certainly live in an imperfect world, although I have no doubt at all that it would have been made more perfect if the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, could have been here rather than in Killarney. I have no doubt at all that he was bent on making that part of the world more perfect while we were wrestling with the Bill. I am sorry that I am presenting Clause 11 in its less than perfect state. It is a poor thing but my own.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
23 May 2006 : Column 705
Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 5:
"DISTRIBUTING BODIES: ANNUAL REPORTS
In section 34 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c. 39) (annual reports) after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) The report shall set out the body's policy and practice in relation to the principle that proceeds of the National Lottery should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by—
(a) a Government department,
(b) the Scottish Ministers,
(c) a Northern Ireland department, or
(d) the National Assembly for Wales.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, scarcely would this important issue of additionality have been grouped with any other because, if anything, this was the one that vexed us the most in Committee and on Report. It is quite clear that there is a general view on both sides of the House about the principle of additionality. There is also general agreement that it is right that lottery distributors should report annually on the way in which they have interpreted the principle. We all regard the lottery as separate from, and additional to, government expenditure used for the good of the community, not a substitution for it. The principle underwrote the 1993 Act, and it underpins the Bill.
On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, tabled an amendment to include such reporting in the Bill because he was concerned about the issue. We opposed that amendment, but not because we disagreed with the sentiments being expressed. I hope the noble Lord accepted my assurances then. We support the idea of transparency, and we endorsed the voluntary agreement reached by the lottery distributors, but the Government could not accept the amendment as it was worded, particularly the section on funding for not-for-profit organisations, which, as I pointed out, would be very difficult, if not impossible, for distributors to meet.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was kind enough to withdraw his amendment on the ground that the Government would table their own to enshrine additionality reporting, which was the objective of his amendment and his argument, in a way in which the lottery distributors would find acceptable. That is what this amendment does. It is very important to get the wording right and we believe that the terms of the amendment can be met by the distributors and will allow proper transparency of their actions.
3.30 pm
It is important to remember that this amendment constitutes a reporting requirement. It is not a definition and does not attempt to set out what lottery distributors can or cannot fund. I think that we have agreed on all sides of the House that it would be wrong to try to define additionality. Decisions on what to fund remain for lottery distributors and I am sure that the whole House will agree with that. If Parliament has reason to take issue with reports from distributors, there will be opportunities to debate that. As I pointed
23 May 2006 : Column 706
out previously, the fact that lottery funding is additional to government funding does not mean that it may not be complementary to such funding.
We have also pointed out that agreement on what is appropriate for the government to fund can change over time. Just because something is not funded now does not mean that that will always be the case. For example, some things which the lottery has in the past funded are now funded by government and would probably not even be considered by the lottery as being right to fund in future.
I am sure that noble Lords have thought of many examples, but MRI scanners are the obvious one. Early MRI scanners were first funded through charitable donations and people and hospitals working hard in their localities. Then the lottery funded scanners. It is now recognised that that is an obligation on the health service. It would be a strange government who would suggest that the funding of MRI scanners should be appropriate for lottery funds.
The funding of MRI scanners demonstrates changing patterns of expenditure, and that something else for which there is a need or desire now may be funded by the Government in the future. There have certainly been cases in the arts and heritage where the lottery has met immediate needs, with much public debate following such decisions. The argument has been that at some stage it ought to be right for the Government to take responsibility for such funding. We are bound to have a constant debate over areas which the lottery appropriately funds to meet needs which the Government are not at the time prepared to meet, but that is not say that the debate will not change. In due course, it will become a charge on the public purse through public resources, because the argument about the importance of such funding has been won.
To sum up, the amendment will enshrine in legislation the requirement for lottery distributors to report annually on how they have interpreted additionality in their funding decisions so that this guarantees transparency, while allowing—I think that the whole House would recognise this—proper freedom and flexibility in funding decisions.
We have had a substantial debate about additionality, which has brought together all sides of the House on its complexity and on the care that the Government must take in this legislation to ensure that distributors have proper freedom and that we do not pre-empt lottery decisions. I hope that it will be recognised that the Government have tabled an amendment which meets that requirement and that noble Lords will feel able to support it. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his substantive reply and substantive amendment to the Bill. I also want to thank Members on both Opposition Benches in the other place and indeed in this House who have kept up fairly consistent pressure throughout the Bill's passage on what has turned out to be a satisfactory conclusion of the debate about additionality.
23 May 2006 : Column 707
This amendment makes it clear that the different lottery distributors are not fulfilling the Government's objectives; are not adding to the Government's expenditure on their own projects; and are not simply a pot to be raided by Government. The reporting obligation highlights the strong requirement for lottery distributors to demonstrate how they are using their funds as an additional source of income for projects that are not necessarily part of the Government's agenda. They will retain flexibility in the way that the Minister described and a strong degree of independence in the way that they direct their funds. That is a wholly satisfactory conclusion. We recognise that it would have been extremely difficult—and we would probably still be in Committee—if we had been charged with finding a definition for additionality, so I am glad that we moved off that point. However, the reporting requirement will, over time, probably lead to a satisfactory definition of the Government's proper province and the province of the lottery distributors. That will come to be an extremely useful form of reporting.
Finally, as this is my last opportunity to speak on the Bill, I want to thank the Minister for his courtesy throughout its passage and his willingness to listen to arguments—sometimes to contrary arguments to which at first he was perhaps not particularly willing to listen. After mature reflection in a number of cases, he has accepted the arguments made and on these Benches we are extremely grateful.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this has been a joint effort on this subject between the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and myself. I echo what he said about the Minister and the way that he has helped us through this Bill, which has been extremely helpful. We have been able to come to a sensible conclusion. The Government have always said that they accepted the principle of additionality. The problem is that almost everyone else realised that over time it had been broken in a number of instances. However, the Minister has been helpful because the new clause will help to stop any further abuses. It will give much-needed transparency in this area and the obligation to report is extremely helpful. No doubt all those who think that that principle was coming under pressure will be satisfied.
The Minister said that this is not a definition of additionality, but he may have created one, because his amendment mentions projects for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by a government department. Maybe that is a new definition of additionality. To me it sounds like the normal advice one received when one went to see the Treasury asking for money for a particular department.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |