§ 7. Mr. Bill O'BrienWhat representations he has received from organisations asking for changes to the distribution arrangement for national lottery money; and if he will make a statement. [17981]
§ Mr. Chris SmithWe have received almost 600 responses to the White Paper, "The People's Lottery". Of the 354 commenting on the proposed changes to distribution, 328–93 per cent.—were positive. Nine out of 10 of those who responded backed our proposals. A copy of the analysis of the responses to the White Paper will be available in the Library shortly. The National Lottery Bill, which was introduced last week, will give effect to our proposals.
§ Mr. O'BrienI thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is a great deal of concern about the possible closure of village and community halls throughout the country? Six halls in my constituency are under threat. Will he advise us on how organisations which care for the elderly and the disabled and which arrange events for young people and other groups can obtain resources from the national lottery? If we are to save community life and provide neighbourhood schemes, it is important that some of the lottery money is used to help organisations in our communities. Will my right hon. Friend give us some advice on that matter?
§ Mr. SmithMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill that we published last week includes a specific 657 provision for the development of fast-track procedures for small-scale community grants. That will help, for example, scout groups, women's institutes, village halls and sports clubs—precisely the sort of neighbourhood and scommunity activities that my hon. Friend so ably described. Those activities deserve support from the lottery, and under our proposals they will get it.
§ Mrs. Virginia BottomleyJudging by the number of times that the Government have pre-launched, launched and relaunched their initiatives for after-school clubs and homework centres using lottery money, it is clear that the Secretary of State has been very accommodating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in allowing the lottery to become a back pocket to support any pet cause and help a Minister in difficulty.
How will the right hon. Gentleman make up the severe shortfall for the sports, arts, heritage and charity bodies, all of which are seeing their plans to extend access and participation in ruins now that they are £1 billion short of the amount that they were expecting just six months ago?
§ Mr. SmithThe right hon. Lady is wrong. Over the seven-year period of the current franchise, the existing five distributors will receive £1.8 billion—which, in each case, is precisely what they were originally expecting to receive. For existing distributors, therefore, there is no shortfall. What is clear, however, is that the hon. Lady—like the entire Conservative party—is uninterested in the welfare of kids after school. She is uninterested in tackling social exclusion and in providing healthy living advice for people throughout the United Kingdom.
On 1 May, we put those proposals to the people and they endorsed them. In July, we offered our proposals for consultation and 93 per cent. of respondents supported what we were saying. We have the people's backing—which is sadly lacking for the points that the hon. Lady made.
§ Mr. MaudeI assume that the Secretary of State agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said in his pre-Budget statement:
A national child care strategy is …now the policy of this country's Government.—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 777.]Does he agree with the Chancellor that such a strategy should be funded, at least partly, by the national lottery? How does he reconcile that with the Prime Minister's solemn pledge, quoted in the lottery White Paper:We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities"?Will the Secretary of State now apologise to the charities and communities throughout the country—to which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred—that, since 14 October, have been robbed of the lottery money they were expecting for their cherished projects? Specifically, will he tell the House how he justifies that raid on lottery money when the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 specifically forbids it?
§ Mr. SmithNo one has been robbed of allocated money. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously examines the facts—as he is singularly unwont to do—he will discover that that is the case. In July 1996, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West 658 Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley)—who is sitting two rows behind him—said about additionality:
Lottery funds are not intended to substitute for funds which would have otherwise been provided by conventional public expenditure.In their 18 years in office, the Conservatives proposed no conventional public expenditure on a national child care strategy. We are now providing funds for a strategy by ensuring that the lottery can be used for that purpose. That is what we told the electorate we would do, and—unlike the Conservative party—we believe in keeping our promises to the electorate.