HC Deb 31 January 2000 vol 343 cc763-4
1. Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

What was the average amount received from national lottery funds in each parliamentary constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [105937]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith)

According to my Department's national lottery awards database, £784 million of lottery money was awarded in the calendar year 1999. That equates to an average of £1,189,590 per constituency.

Mr. Sheerman

Many hon. Members will have been astounded by how much their constituents have spent on the lottery over five years. How is expenditure from lottery revenues evened out throughout the country? The last time my right hon. Friend reported to the House there seemed to be much uneven distribution in favour of London and the south-east, whereas Yorkshire and Humber and Huddersfield were not receiving their share of the cake. What are we doing to distribute that very welcome lottery money evenly throughout the country?

Mr. Smith

I am very pleased to tell my hon. Friend that since the lottery began Huddersfield has received £15.7 million, which is 42 per cent. more than the UK average. However, he correctly makes the general point that it is important to ensure that the geographical spread of lottery awards across the country is as fair as possible. That is why we put in place the National Lottery Act 1998, insisted that lottery distributers have proper strategic plans, introduced the small grants scheme and focused the new opportunities fund particularly on areas of need. I gave directions to all the lottery distributers insisting that they endeavour to secure a fairer geographical spread for awards.

Mr. John Townend (East Yorkshire)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that every constituency could have had considerably more money if the Government had not wasted £399 million on the dome? Although it is always easy to be wise in hindsight, does he not agree that it would have been better to spend the money on a permanent memorial to the millennium, not one that will be knocked down in 10 years?

Mr. Smith

If the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported had had their way, the dome would have been knocked down after a year. The decisions that we took in 1997, immediately on coming to office, ensure that it will be in place for many years, if not decades, to provide a permanent legacy.

Angela Smith (Basildon)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the past two years I have been trying to obtain from Camelot comparative information on the number of tickets sold and the lottery grants awarded in my and other constituencies? I am pleased that the information has now been provided, albeit reluctantly. My constituents have spent about £60 million on lottery tickets and received £1.5 million back. Is not that Robin Hood in reverse and what action can he take to rectify it?

Mr. Smith

I well understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. It is important to remember that only 28p of every pound spent on lottery tickets goes to good causes, with 50p going in prizes. Funds also go to the administration of the lottery and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, her point is important, which is precisely why we have put in place the new directions and new structures under the 1998 Act. They will seek, over time, to rectify the problem.

Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks)

Why should an extra £60 million of lottery funding given for those good causes be diverted, as is reported, to bail out the dome, which clearly does not have the proper strategic plan to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Of which is he proudest: the river that did not catch fire, the eye that does not revolve or the dome that nobody wants to visit?

Mr. Smith

The reality is that no application for additional funding has yet been made to the Millennium Commission. However, on the advice of its accounting officer, when we met on Friday we took a prudent view of what the commission's opinion would be if an application for cash flow support were to be made. It was sensible to make such a decision. I strongly point out to the hon. Gentleman that such funding will and must be repaid; it is not an outright grant.