§ 3. Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)How much is unallocated in the national lottery distribution fund. [174893]
§ The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris)The NLDF holds about £2.65 billion, of which less than 4 per cent. is unallocated. Forward commitments made by lottery distributors total £3.6 billion, making the fund 32 per cent. over-committed.
§ Mr. SwireThat is a welcome move in the right direction, but it still fails to meet the figures planned by the Government as long ago as 2002. As a matter of principle, however, is it not iniquitous that so much money can still be held centrally when up and down the country there are good causes, some of them time-limited? In my constituency the Weavers' Tales celebrate 250 years of carpet-making in Axminster, while the Norman Lockyer observatory in Sidmouth is crying out for money to improve access. Everywhere in the country are good causes for which local people want funds that currently sit invested and centrally held. Can the Secretary of State not give the Heritage Lottery Fund and other distribution bodies clearer guidelines so that the money can be given bad to those from whom it originally came?
§ Estelle MorrisThe Secretary of State has done exactly that. All lottery distributors receive guidance on not holding back too much in reserve. We should not give the impression that money that is waiting to be spent sits in the coffers owing to inefficiency. This is about managing cash flow as much as anything else. As I said in my answer, the fund is 32 per cent. overcommitted. In reducing the reserves, we want to ensure 1290 that we spend what we can reasonably spend this year, and not make worthwhile projects throughout the country wait until next year or the year after.
The National Audit Office is currently considering what balance it is appropriate for distributors to hold. I think that its report, which will appear in the next few months, will give us extra ammunition in making sure that the distributors do not retain funds centrally. I should put on record, however, that they are held by the distributors and not by Government.
§ Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North) (Lab)Can the Minister assure me that any surplus funds will be spent on the arts—on sport rather than the arts, and will not be wasted on schemes for the London lobbies?
§ Estelle MorrisI much preferred my hon. Friend's initial comment; indeed, perhaps I should ask you to introduce a new rule, Mr. Speaker, stating "no corrections allowed". At the moment, the distributors themselves keep the money, and the real issue is where the interest on funds that are held is spent. There is a formula for the giving of lottery money to distributors, and currently there is almost an incentive for them to hold on to the reserves, given that they also keep the interest. As my hon. Friend will know from the relevant document, we intend to ensure that that interest is shared equally among all the funds. If I had time, I would list the many benefits of giving such money to the arts—not just for luvvies, but for people throughout the country in all communities, rural and urban. Indeed, without arts funding this country would be a much poorer place.
§ Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)The Minister will be aware that in the east midlands, and in Leicestershire in particular, there is concern that less than the average number of bids from the region are successful. Why are we discriminated against in this way?
§ Estelle MorrisIt is impossible to discriminate in terms of bids because the Government do not control the number of bids coming in, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. On outcomes, the situation in the east midlands may well resemble that in my own constituency, in that it does not get what one might call its fair share of lottery fund money. The Government, together with the lottery distributors, have already embarked on the fair share initiative, through which we will work very carefully with those areas that are not receiving a fair amount of money.
I should point out that if the hon. Gentleman feels that applications from his area are not forthcoming, the lottery distributors would be more than happy to meet him, and perhaps to work jointly with his constituency and the neighbouring constituencies to encourage grass-roots organisations to make bids. If they do not make the bids, they cannot get the money. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a very important point, and I very much hope that he will respond to that invitation. Lottery distributors are more than willing to work with any Member of this House to increase the number of bids from under-represented constituencies.
§ Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con)Why is the bureaucracy associated with efforts to get money from
1291 the lottery so difficult to deal with? Does the Minister agree with the criticism offered by my local schools and Bedfordshire county council, which said that it has been exceptionally difficult to get lottery distribution money for new sports facilities from the New Opportunities Fund? Indeed, when the fund was set up in 2001, it was allocated a budget of £500 million, but until last month only £10.4 million had actually been spent.
§ Estelle MorrisWe do need to reduce bureaucracy; indeed, there is nothing more frustrating than people being put off making bids because they feel that the process will prove too bureaucratic. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism tells me that the programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers is now ahead of schedule. However, there have been bureaucratic problems, and I hope that they have been sorted out. In respect of the awards for all initiative, for example, the waiting time from application to making the grant has been significantly reduced. All lottery distributors are aware of the problems associated with too much form filling and lengthy waiting times for the making of decisions. I take seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and we need constantly to keep our eye on the situation, and to do all that we can to reduce form filling and bureaucracy.