National Lottery etc. Bill [Money] (Hansard, 25 January 1993)

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)
This money resolution should not go by without comment. Two money resolutions from Bills passed on previous occasions are on the Order Paper and the House has passed money resolutions in a cursory manner. I am not in favour of that. Ministers should be called to account.
On page v, under the heading, "Financial effects of the Bill [Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I would be much obliged if the House would come to order and if those hon. Members leaving the Chamber would do so quietly so that we can hear the hon. Member who has the floor—[Interruption.] Order. Will those hon. Members who are talking beyond the Bar remain silent or leave the Chamber?

§ Mr. Cryer
It is important for the House to scrutinise money as there are two money resolutions on the Order Paper. That is because the Government failed to achieve comprehensive money resolutions on two previous occasions: for the Housing and Urban Development Bill and the Education Bill. Therefore, it behoves Parliament to consider such matters.
The first paragraph of "Financial effects of the Bill" states: On Parts I and II, the only costs falling to be met from public funds will be the additional costs of the Secretary of State in implementing the Bill during 1993–94 (£0.5 million) and the initial costs during 1993–94 of the Director General of the National Lottery (£1–5 million). That makes a total of £2 million. I can think of better uses for that £2 million than establishing a national lottery.
The money resolution does not provide for any limit on the expenditure. It is open-ended and does not state that the expenditure should be limited to one year. Why is that? Do the Government anticipate that expenditure will be spread over more than one year even though the paragraph on the Bill's financial effects specifically relates to 1993–94?
The money resolution includes the costs of the expenses of the Secretary of State in relation to the organisations listed in clause 21. I shall not list the organisations in that clause, but how much of the costs of administration are likely to be borne by such organisations as the Arts Council and the Sports Council? That may be a significant amount and result in a reduction in the anticipated revenue from the national lottery.
The money resolution also involves expenditure on a number of additional posts in the public sector. The explanation of part IV suggests an additional 130 people 817 will be employed among the public sector staff. The wages of some of those people will be borne out of public funds. What proportion of the money authorised by the money resolution is it anticipated will be borne out of public funds? Those extra staff would be better utilised at the disability living allowance unit at Blackpool ensuring the smooth passage of mobility allowance and attendance allowance than establishing a national lottery. How much of the cost of employing additional public sector staff will come from public sector funds?
The Bill's explanation states, somewhat cosily: It is not expected that there will be any significant additional manpower requirements by local authorities. The Bill provides for additional fees to cover additional costs. Will the Minister assure us that, if local authorities meet any additional costs that are not covered by additional fee revenue, the money authorised in the money resolution will be sufficient to cover payments to local authorities if there is a clear demand for money to meet those additional costs? I am sure that the Minister will agree that he would not like to see any additional charges on local authorities, which are already stretched to the utmost in providing education, care in the community and a range of services. We certainly do not want traditional local authority services diminished because of additional pressure as a result of a national lottery. I hope that the Minister can assure me that the money resolution covers any contingency that might arise from the increased cost to local authorities.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key)
The expenses of the National Debt Commissioners will be dependent on the number and size of transactions handled for investment, and might be about £100,000. The costs of Oflot will be £1.5 million in 1993–94. They are likely to be about £2 million thereafter. Incidentally, that compares with the costs of Ofgas of £2 million, Ofwat at £6.5 million and Offer at £11 million. The costs of the Department will be £500,000 in 1993–94 and are likely to be at similar levels thereafter.
The Millennium Commission and the National Lottery Charities Board costs—there is provision for the Secretary of State to bear initial administrative costs in 1994–95 before lottery moneys flow into the system—will be repaid when funds flow into the national lottery distribution fund. Experience with other charitable bodies that distribute large sums shows that 4 per cent. is a typical 818 figure for the expenses of a charitable distribution body. The other distribution bodies would be likely to have administration costs at similar levels. All costs from 1994–95 onwards will be repaid from the national lottery.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked about staffing levels. The director general will have a small permanent staff of about 45. The Millennium Commission's support unit will be quite small. The administrative secretary will be paid at the rate of a grade 7 officer of the home civil service. There will be a small staff of fewer than 10, with expert advice being brought in as necessary. Staffing for other bodies will be determined by those bodies themselves. Much of it will be brought in as necessary rather than involving many extra staff. These bodies will report on their levels of administrative expenditure on the lottery. The reports will be laid before Parliament.
The costs of administering and regulating the lottery when it is established will be met through lottery proceeds. The only costs falling on public expenditure will be during 1993–94, when Oflot is set up and the first licence is granted. These are estimated to be £1.5 million. The Department of National Heritage will incur additional costs on the implementation of the national lottery of about £500,000 in the same year for administration, legal advice and other matters involving the granting of the first licence.
The total effect on public sector manpower is expected to be an increase of 130, which includes all the distribution bodies and additional staff administering the fund in the Department of National Heritage. From 1994–95, these staff costs will be met entirely from national lottery proceeds. I hope that that answers the questions of the hon. Member for Bradford, South.