Lords Sitting of 8 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

"The Health of the Nation": Progress
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are now able, one year after the publication of The Health of The Nation, to give a progress report on achieving the targets listed as key areas for improving health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we will publish a full report on progress on The Health of the Nation in September.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; I am glad to know that we shall have a report in September. But does the Minister agree that in the past year several actions by the Government, in which I would include cancelling health education advisers for schools, cancelling HIV and AIDS education in the national curriculum and failing to ban tobacco advertising, have undermined the search for those very important standards? Does she further agree that in this context the recent pronouncement of the Secretary of State for Health that she would run up stairs at the Department of Health and serve fruit rather than biscuits seems rather trivial?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness. Looking at the 21 key target areas, it is interesting to see that within a year for nine of those areas we are on target. Six are going in the right direction, but perhaps not fast enough. Six, I have to say, are not going in the right direction. Those are the ones that we shall tackle.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: My Lords, can my noble friend, speaking as a health Minister, give the House an assurance that the amendment on sex education for which the House voted by a substantial majority earlier this week will help and not hinder the campaign against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that that is the case. I am absolutely certain that by making sex education compulsory in schools we shall begin to tackle much more aggressively the number of unwanted pregnancies among teenagers, which is the highest in Europe.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that if the health of the less well off people in Britain could he brought up to the level of the better off, the targets of The Health of the Nation would all be
1502
achieved or over-achieved? In view of this well-documented statistic, can she say why no mention is made in the document of the desirability of eliminating inequalities in health?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when we look across the world, in all developed countries there are variations in health which are linked to geography and to people's social and economic circumstances. We should not overlook the fact that health in this country has steadily improved in all regions and for all social groups as measured by key indicators such as infant mortality and life expectation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister say what the Government are going to do about the very serious shortage of doctors working in the field of STDs in some parts of the country? How will they reach the targets in Section D of The Health of the Nation if this shortage continues?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Chief Medical Officer is reviewing medical manpower. I am sure that that is one of the issues that he will take into account.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it will be possible for her, on this very important report, to have consultations with the British Medical Association, UNISON and all the people who devote their lives to our NHS, who are only too keen to assist her?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are aware that if we are to achieve the targets in The Health of the Nation we have to involve everybody in the country: those who work within the NHS and those outside it. Certainly we shall achieve very little if we do not involve those who work within the National Health Service. Indeed, this policy was widely welcomed by them when it was launched a year ago.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the setting up of the Nutrition Task Force under The Health of the Nation programme? Can she say whether there has been any progress with regard to that programme and whether the outlets, such as schools, have yet received any guidance under the new programme?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Nutrition Task Force was set up in October last year. It has this week launched its agenda for the next six months and is consulting on it so that everybody can see what it proposes. If there are gaps or different priorities, the task force will take those into account.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the promise of the report in September. Will it include in particular a report on how far we have achieved the dietary targets in The Health of the Nation, particularly in view of the concern of many in this country that people living on social security, especially those under 25, in receipt of a lower benefit are unable to take advice from The Health of the Nation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. One of the matters that

1503
concerns me is the lack of knowledge that young people have in preparing food and apparently the lack of enjoyment. I believe that food should be enjoyed by all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that running up the stairs is a useful form of exercise, and taking more fruit is an essential part of improving our diet? Therefore the advice of our right honourable friend Mrs. Virginia Bottomley is absolutely right.
Did my noble friend hear on the radio today that polio has been virtually obliterated in the Americas, both North and South? Can she tell me what the situation is both in this country and in Europe?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. One need only look at her to see that she is fit and healthy and responsible for the nation's health.
I am sure that my noble friend is aware that polio has been eradicated both in this country, in Europe and increasingly throughout the world. Indeed, smallpox also has been totally eradicated.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, can the Minister define for us those target areas which are doing well, those which are not doing well and those which are lamentably failing? With regard to tobacco advertising, can she confirm that her Chief Medical Officer of Health favours a restriction on cigarette advertising?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to wait until September for the details of progress on the targets. With regard to tobacco advertising, it is unclear whether in view of the tight controls that are already in place a ban would provide a further fall in smoking. We believe that the best way to control tobacco advertising is through voluntary agreements with the industry. However, we are still considering responses to the Smee report on the effects of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption. Ultimately it is for individual people to decide whether they want to stop.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister will recall that last week she answered a question to my satisfaction on the issue of deaths at birth and before the age of one in Manchester. Is she aware that since then the decision has been taken to close the Booth Hall Children's Hospital on the east side of Manchester? It has a long history of serving the area in caring for the health of the children; and with the exception of the authorities concerned, everyone else in the area is opposed to the plan. Can the Minister undertake to give the proposals the closest scrutiny before allowing the closure to take place to the detriment of the children in the area?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the closures of hospitals are for local determination. If the community health council objects, it must refer to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for a decision.
Lord Eat well: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Monday I received a circular from the Department of Health dated 23rd June in which it was stated that its policy on AIDS had four pillars, one of which was the inclusion of HIV and AIDS teaching in the national curriculum? Now that the Government have kicked away one of the four pillars of that policy, can the Minister say how that squares with the statement in The Health of the Nation that AIDS is the biggest public health crisis facing the nation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I understand the amendment that was debated thoroughly the other night in your Lordships' Chamber, there is no question that children will not be taught about AIDS and HIV in school. But it will be as part of sex education, which is where it belongs.

Veterinary Medicines: Safety
3.17 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they conduct any independent scientific tests upon veterinary medicines prior to the issue of product licences in order to ensure that the products meet the manufacturers' claims for safety to the environment, animals and humans.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, in common with applications made for licences for human medicines, the Government rely upon the integrity of the data submitted by the pharmaceutical companies in support of veterinary product licence applications. Some of that data can be produced on behalf of applicants by independent organisations.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that organophosphates have never been tested on humans because they are so dangerous? That is therefore treating the users of sheep dips as guinea-pigs. Can he say how many suspected adverse reactions have to be reported before the product licence is withdrawn?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is important that the noble Countess should understand that the procedures involved in the assessment of data submitted by pharmaceutical companies are extremely stringent. Toxicologists, pharmacists and veterinarians in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, together with scientists from other government departments, carry out a thorough examination of all data submitted in support of product licence applications. Members of the independent Veterinary Products Committee also apply their own specialist scientific knowledge to complete the assessment process. Manufacturers' claims for safety, quality and efficacy are evaluated on the strength of thorough and critical analyses of the data presented.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how effectively the Veterinary Products Committee monitors suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicines? Does the committee rely on the Veterinary

1505
Medicines Directorate for monitoring? If so, who pays for the cost of that? Can the Minister also say how secret is the safety monitoring information?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as at 6th July the number of suspected adverse reactions to sheep dips involving humans since 1st January 1985 reported to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate was 397, involving 483 individuals. Those cases are reported in a variety of ways to the directorate; sometimes through GPs, sometimes through the Ministry. That work continues. Every case is followed up and we hope to have a digest from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate when Ministers review the status of organophosphate sheep dips later in the year.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that his department has issued instructions to those who use organophosphorous sheep dips that care has to be taken in the application by farmers and other people who may use them?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly correct. Information on the potential hazards from individual products is contained on the product label and health and safety data sheets provided by the manufacturer. For sheep dips, following recent recommendations from the Veterinary Products Committee, a new leaflet, a stick-on label and wall poster have been sent to all registered sheep farmers in the UK re-emphasising the requirements for safe use of these products. In addition, the HSE has published a guide to producing a farm COSHH assessment which is available free of charge from local HSE offices.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he will have total support from all those who believe that questions of this kind must be determined by science and not by scares and pressure groups?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. The noble Countess's strength of feeling on this issue is well understood. But I hope that she appreciates that the Government must decide these matters on the basis of independent scientific advice. That advice will be coming forward later in the year and Ministers will attend to the issue with the seriousness which it undoubtedly deserves.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Countess's feelings are not only well understood but are well justified?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government will take a view on that later in the year.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with so many antibiotics being used in the farming industry, is there a danger to the food chain and to the resistance of humans to infection?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the tests carried out on all veterinary medicines include safety tests which incorporate tests on medicine residues. I do not believe that there are any licensed veterinary medicines which
1506
pose the kind of danger to which the noble Baroness alludes; but if she has any examples, I would be pleased to hear of them.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the two very real concerns that I have? The first is about the integrity of the chemical companies. We all know that if a product is banned in this country it is immediately sent to third world countries still with English labels on so that the users do not understand what they are doing. The second is about the independence of the Veterinary Products Committee, According to last year's annual report only one member of the committee did not have links with the chemical companies.
Earl Howe: My Lords, under the Medicines Act it is a legal requirement that data submitted in support of a product licence application must not be false or incomplete. If it is found that data have been withheld, the licensing authority has the power to suspend, revoke or vary the provisions of the licence. It is in no company's interests to attempt to short-circuit the, proper procedures. I shaft refrain from commenting on the second part of the noble Countess's question for reasons which I hope are obvious.

Bosnia: UN Protection Role
3.23 p.m
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many civilian casualties occurred in the United Nations protected areas of Sarajevo, Zepa, Gorazde and Srebrenica in the most recent month for which figures are available; and what progress is being made in finding the additional troops that the United Nations protection force requires to make protection effective.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, there are no definitive figures for casualties incurred in the UN protected areas in Bosnia, as estimates differ radically according to source. Of the 7,600 additional personnel which the UN Secretary General says are required to deter attacks against safe areas, to date 6,120 have been offered from Bangladesh, Pakistan, France and Malaysia.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. In the present situation, where civilians are massacred and aid workers murdered, is it not essential that the United Nations takes under its own command the forces of the Bosnian Government? Would that not make possible, with the help of the existing UN forces and allied air cover, the protection of the innocent and the bringing to justice of war criminals?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not find the noble Lord's proposal acceptable for two reasons. Impartiality is a basic tenet of UN peace keeping. Indigenous forces clearly could not be regarded as impartial by all, even if they were seeking to be so. I believe, too, that the forces now fighting against one another in Bosnia, because they have

1507
different objectives and from time to time have changing objectives, could not be expected to form a united force. It simply would not be reasonable to expect the UN to control local troops when the local commanders cannot even exercise that control at the present time.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, further to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, what progress has been made with the idea of setting up a war crimes tribunal to try those responsible for the rape and murder of civilians? Does the Minister not agree that it would be necessary to establish a general framework of law within which such a tribunal might operate by extending the Fourth Geneva Convention to conflicts which are not between high contracting parties or even sovereign states but which would nevertheless allow the forces controlled by those entities to be tried in the jurisdiction of the high contracting parties?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, we believe that it is necessary to establish at the earliest time possible a mechanism to bring to justice the perpetrators of war crimes. The United Nations has asked for nominations for 11 judges and one prosecutor. As regards the second part of his question, the matter needs much further investigation. I understand why he asks the question but there are many differences of opinion about going down the route he suggests.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, to what extent has publicity been given in the area to the fact that there will be war crimes trials in order to discourage people from behaving badly at this stage?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there has been some local radio publicity but, given the situation as it is in Bosnia, it is extremely difficult to get regular publicity. Much, unfortunately, is rumour. However, I believe that once the tribunal is set up there will then be a special effort to get publicity on the all important issue of persuading people with evidence to come forward.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that both Serb and Croat forces are obstructing humanitarian relief convoys and seizing part of their cargoes? If that is in fact happening, can she tell the House what the UN Security Council is doing to stop such outrageous action?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must tell the noble Baroness that it is not only Serb forces or Croatian forces but also Moslem forces in certain areas which have impeded the passage of humanitarian aid. We have in no sense given in to the threats made against those delivering aid. The UN Security Council is well seized of the matter. But imposing wishes in such a place as Bosnia at the present time is well nigh impossible: it happens only because of the very clever negotiation being carried out by UNPROFOR troops on the ground. We have to leave it to their good sense to try to get as much through as
1508
we possibly can. I note that the flow of humanitarian aid to Bosnia must be increased. That was part of the political declaration coming from the Tokyo G7 meeting.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, do the Government still believe that the application of sanctions by the Government and others under the aegis of the United Nations is effective? Do the Government believe that sanctions will bring this cruel war to an end?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, sanctions are undoubtedly hampering the Serbian re-supply of Bosnian Serbs. Further to that, there is now an annual inflation rate in Serbia of more than 225 per cent. The fact that now one has to provide 1 million dinars in Serbia for one deutschmark is significant evidence that sanctions are indeed working. Sanctions alone will never bring an end to the dispute. Only the parties to it, deciding to bring an end to the dispute, can bring that peace.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would the noble Baroness care to comment on the reported remarks of the Foreign Secretary that if the parties in Bosnia cannot come to an agreement themselves, then the United Nations would perhaps have to withdraw its troops and leave them to fight it out among themselves, the Bosnian Moslems firstly being armed? Is that report correct? Can the noble Baroness say what timescale and in what terms the Foreign Secretary is thinking, if that report is true?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite certain that if the Foreign Secretary spoke as the report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, indicates, he certainly had no timescale in mind. We have made it quite clear, as has the Secretary General of the UN and the UNHCR, that if there were to be any lifting of the arms embargo, that would force a withdrawal of UNPROFOR and the aid agencies. I do not believe that we should give up; we should do all we can to help the Owen-Stoltenberg work forward. That is what we are seeking to do, at the same time supplying humanitarian aid in the most difficult of conditions.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister mentioned peace keeping. Is that not a little premature, as there is no ceasefire? Does the noble Baroness agree that the Korean war provides a precedent for the suggestion that I made earlier?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have always referred io UNPROFOR as the largest peacekeeping force ever deployed. There have been times when it has kept the peace. It has made the peace in many of the local ceasefires that it has negotiated over these long months. But I believe that Bosnia is unique. It does not bear comparison with any previous conflict. There is such a good preventive presence in many areas that we should go on trying to make and keep the peace.

EC Tobacco Subsidies
3.32 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they agreed to a substantial increase in the expenditure of the EC in subsidising tobacco growing in 1993 over that permitted in 1992.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Treaty of Rome provides for tobacco to be eligible for support under the CAP. Expenditure requirements are a consequence of the support mechanisms adopted. The expenditure on the 1992 crop, which largely falls on the 1993 budget, reflects an expected larger harvest. This, however, is the last crop to which the unreformed regime applies.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it the implication of my noble friend's Answer that for the following year there will be a substantial reduction in this waste of taxpayers' money? While the expenditure for growing tobacco is further subsidised, is the expenditure on propaganda against smoking being similarly increased?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. The Commission estimates that the annual expenditure on tobacco subsidies as a result of the CAP reform agreed last year will reduce by over 25 per cent. between 1994 and 1997. We shall be pressing for further reductions at the next review. My noble friend is also correct in that the campaign to reduce the prevalence of smoking lies at the centre of the Government's The Health of the Nation initiative.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to answer a simple question? Can he spell out to the House what are the main arguments against paying the growers of this exceptionally carcinogenic crop not to produce tobacco?
Earl Howe: My Lords, were the Community to cease its subsidies to tobacco growers completely there would be many hundreds of thousands of people, particularly in southern member states, who could not subsist. Furthermore, the Community would simply import the tobacco which it was no longer growing itself. It is much better to recognise life as it is by trying to reduce the level of smoking and by making sure that the tobacco which is grown in the EC is of the less harmful, milder varieties.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that despite the fact that expenditure under this head (Chapter B1-17) has been incurred at the rate of over 1,000 million ecus per annum, there has been no substantial diminution at all in the expense, although it has been widely proved to have been fraudulent from top to bottom and in some cases corrupt? Is the noble Earl further aware that, according to the recent preliminary draft budget, expenditure during the year 1994 onwards is due to be £994 million, of which one-eighth is to be borne by the British taxpayer? On the assumption that we are now really at the centre of Europe, will the noble Earl take
1510
steps to ensure that the preliminary draft budget which will come before the Council is substantially reduced?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord's sentiments are not at all out of tune with those of the Government. For many years we have consistently campaigned for reductions in EC subsidies for tobacco, but with limited support from other member states. However, the recent reforms are a very definite step in the right direction. As I said to my noble friend, we shall be looking for further reductions in subsidies in 1996. Perhaps I may pick up on a point made by the noble Lord. As the United Kingdom does not produce or store tobacco and therefore has no receipts, the abatement agreed at Fontainebleau will apply in full and, in effect, our net contribution to the tobacco regime will be around 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. of EC expenditure.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords. does my noble friend agree that an increase in subsidy is bound to result in an increase in the import of cheap cigarettes to this country to the detriment of our own tobacco industry, which gives to the Exchequer each year well over £6 billion—the equivalent of over 4p on the standard rate of tax? Can my noble friend tell me the logic of giving taxpayers' money to increase the growing of tobacco and at the same time banning advertising?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that I answered my noble friend's final question a moment or two ago. However, what he says reflects the need for EC subsidies to be spent in a cost effective way, which does not disadvantage unduly those in the Community who grow the crop.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords—
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Lord Wyatt!
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government still support discretionary powers to enable member states to give preference to new producers of tobacco when allocating national tobacco quotas? Will not the use of such powers really prolong the problem?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we do not support any measures which result in a net increase in the amount of tobacco produced in the Community.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords—

Business
3.38 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have passed the 30th minute. We are now in the 31st minute and I shall proceed with the Business Statement.

1511
At a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on local government in Scotland.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the National Lottery etc. Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the order of commitment to the Sexual Offences Bill will be discharged and the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill will be taken.
Finally, I know that many of your Lordships are interested in the prospective dates of the Summer Recess. I am not yet in a position to announce those dates. However, it may be of assistance to the House to know that it is expected that the House will be sitting during the week beginning 26th July but I hope that at about that time a balmy breeze is beginning to proceed over the Chamber of your Lordships' House.

Scottish Local Government
3.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement about local government reform in Scotland which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made today in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government's proposals for local government reorganisation in Scotland have been the subject of detailed consultation and discussion for the past two years. Throughout that time, support for the concept of single-tier local government has been strong and sustained. I have received a great deal of valuable comment from a wide range of individuals and organisations and I am publishing today a White Paper which sets out our decisions on the new structure. I am also publishing a leaflet which will be made widely available in Scotland and summaries of the responses I received to our second consultation paper on local government reform and our paper about the future of water and sewerage services. I have placed copies of all these documents in the Vote Office where they will be available in the usual way when I complete this Statement.
"The Government have decided to establish a single-tier structure of local government throughout Scotland, comprising 28 authorities. The details of these authorities are set out in the White Paper. The new authorities will vary significantly in size and character, reflecting local wishes, circumstances and requirements.
"We intend to re-establish the four Scottish cities as unitary councils and to create powerful new authorities on their outskirts to act as a counter-balance. In the more rural areas of Scotland the new authorities will inevitably cover
1512
substantial areas but areas for which our consultation has shown there is an established identity. The three islands authorities will remain unchanged.
"The new authorities, whatever their size, will be encouraged and expected to pursue actively the adoption of schemes of decentralised management and administration to ensure that decisions are taken at the most local level that is practicable and that people can discuss problems with their council without having to make a long journey to its headquarters. I will be asking authorities to prepare and publish comprehensive schemes for decentralisation.
"The new authorities will all be responsible for providing the full range of local authority services including education, housing and social work. The Government consider, however, that the Reporter service for children's hearings would be more effectively provided as a national service and I am proposing to establish a new body for this purpose. In addition, economies of scale available in the water and sewerage industry point to fewer, rather than more, bodies responsible for these services than we have at present. Further, customers should be able to benefit from the efficiencies and investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure which can be provided by the private sector. We therefore intend to establish three public water authorities, broadly in line with Option d in the consultation paper Investing For Our Future. These authorities will own and operate the current water and sewerage assets and arrange for new investment in ways which will maximise the involvement of the private sector.
"The existing police forces and fire brigades will be retained. Some statutory co-operation will be required for their oversight and for the management of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. In all other respects, it will be for individual authorities to make appropriate arrangements for the delivery of services in their area. I will expect to see a considerable development of the enabling role of authorities, and a willingness to explore further the possibilities of co-operation with the private sector as they explore new ways of delivering services more efficiently. I will be looking also for a greater willingness to share the expertise of specialist staff.
"The changes I have announced will, of course, have implications for local government staff. I have already announced the Government's intention to establish a staff commission in Scotland to oversee the transfer process and to provide me with appropriate advice. Early retirement or redundancy compensation will be available in cases where particular staff are not required by the new authorities under the new structure and further decisions about these arrangements will be taken in due course.
"I have, of course, made it clear that I expect the new structure to cost less than the present two-tier system. Savings of up to £65 million per annum can be expected from the new structure and these

1513
savings are likely to pay back the inevitable transitional costs within four or five years. The actual level of savings achieved by the new structure will ultimately depend upon the actions of the new authorities themselves.
"The main objective of this reorganisation is not, however, to cut costs. It is to increase the effectiveness of local government in arranging the delivery of services and responding to local needs and concerns. I believe the new structure will make local authorities more accountable and responsive to the people they serve, and help all authorities achieve the standards already reached by the best. It will remove the confusion which undoubtedly exists over which council is responsible for which function, so that users know where to go when they are dissatisfied. It offers local government in Scotland the prospect of a bright, dynamic future. It will give a major boost to the implementation of the Citizen's Charter in Scottish local government.
"My intention is to introduce a Bill to implement these arrangements. Subject to the parliamentary consideration of the arrangements being cornpleted, I hope that it will be possible for elections to the new authorities to take place in the spring of 1995 to give them until 1st April 1996 to establish themselves and to prepare for the assumption of responsibility from existing authorities on that date. Thereafter, elections to the new councils will take place every three years.
"The proposals I have announced today are of the utmost importance to everybody in Scotland. They reflect the strong and growing support for all-purpose councils in Scotland. They represent a tremendous opportunity to improve and strengthen our local government system and the delivery of local services. And they are a great stride forward for local democracy in Scotland. I commend the White Paper to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Although I thank him also for having sent me the brochures and books pertaining to the Statement, he will be aware that I have not really had time to look at them, especially those relating to water and sewerage which are of specific and special interest to Scotland. He will be aware that much of the rest of the Statement and the maps were published in some sections of the Scottish press today although we can never rely completely on those maps.
What is interesting about the Statement is that almost the same fervour and enthusiasm were shown for the Wheatley Report, which suggested getting rid of single-tier authorities in favour of more manageable authorities. I cannot remember whether the noble and learned. Lord served on the committee next door when we considered that Bill. Many of us supported the Wheatley provisions. I certainly supported those ideas
1514
although I ultimately wanted a Scottish Assembly which could have established single-tier authorities. That would have been a more intelligent approach.
Although the Statement is expressed in terms of good business and good government, I feel that it is largely a dishonest juggling with the boundaries, such as happened with the old London County Council and the Greater London Council. Almost my first vote in another place was related to the abolition of the LCC because the GLC was supposed to give a Tory majority. It did not give a Tory majority, so the Government got rid of it. Such moves did not work and these provisions will not work in Scotland. The fundamental fact is that there are just not enough Conservatives in Scotland to provide decent Conservative representation in either local or national government.
I can see the footprints of the honourable Member for Stirling all over certain parts of the Statement, particularly those relating to the move towards outside bodies and quangos. I had hoped that the Scottish Conservatives had laid that ghost, but obviously it is still with us to some extent in the form of the honourable Member for Eastwood. Everyone in Scotland is aware that whatever happens in Scottish local government reorganisation, Eastwood had to be preserved as the one jewel in the crown on the whole west coast of Scotland.
We must look at the important subject of water and sewerage. I am sure that the Minister is aware of feelings in Scotland. The present police and fire provision is to be retained. Obviously, in areas such as the Lothians and Strathclyde, the police force will cover many local authorities. Will it be represented by joint boards or is it to be run by quangos? Will the service continue to be democratically answerable? On the question of local government staff, does the Minister have any estimate of the numbers likely to be involved?
If there is to be a £65 million saving to local government, will that be returned to local authorities over and above additionality, as it is called in some areas? Will it be additional or will it be taken away from local government? The transitional costs appear to be not far short of the figure given by my honourable friend the Member for Monklands West who said that they would reach something like £600 million. If everything goes as the Statement believes it will, the estimate is that they will be £350 million. We shall watch that figure carefully.
As the Minister said, this matter is of vital importance to Scotland. Now that we have the material, for which I thank him, when can we expect a debate in this House?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and in his criticisms of the content of the Statement. Is the Minister aware that it is a controversial and partisan Statement, both in its conception and content? Now that we have passed beyond leaks in the Scotsman we have t he holy writ of the Statement itself. Does the Minister agree that such radical changes in local government should emerge on

1515
the basis of the maximum degree of consensus after consideration by some kind of independent commission? Have not these plans been cooked up politically inside the Scottish Office with a high degree of party political motivation behind them?
Is the Minister aware that the map produced by the Government is an odd one? The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, drew attention to the curious aspect of the arrangements in Eastwood. Paisley is sliced into two. It is a farcical and grotesque map. It reminds me of nothing more than the map of Bosnia which was the basis of the Vance-Owen plan. That of course had the decent motivation of creating peace. This has the rather disagreeable motivation of seeking to assist Conservative Party interests inside Scotland. Is the Minister aware of the dangers of a government who are singularly unrepresentative in Scotland these days producing proposals of this kind to assist their position?
One of the revealing sentences in the Statement is:
"We intend to re-establish the four Scottish cities as unitary councils and to create powerful new authorities on their outskirts to act as a counter-balance".
Most people will believe that the adjective "political" should have been included, the motive being to create a "political" counter-balance. In the following paragraph, the Statement talks about the plan being,
"to ensure that decisions are taken at the most local level that is practicable and that people can discuss problems with their council without having to make a long journey to its headquarters".
That is a tongue-in-cheek statement when one considers the Statement as a whole, which greatly tilts the balance of power towards the Secretary of State in St. Andrew's House. It also leaves the Highland region intact. Far from having an established identity, the Highland region has a network of identities. One would have thought that it might have required some consideration from the Government in the light of what purports to be the philosophy behind the Statement. The Statement is controversial and unacceptable. It will arouse a great deal of argument inside Scotland. I beg leave to doubt whether it will achieve what is undoubtedly one of its principal purposes—the rescue of the Tory Party in Scotland.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the principal theme that ran through the observations from both Front Benches was that this was a matter of political juggling. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, had been around Scotland, he would have appreciated, as was demonstrated in a wide array of representations made to the Secretary of State, that there is strong support for a return to single-tier local authorities in Scotland. The noble Lord said that he thought a better way to have approached this matter might have been through the establishment of a commission. I do not know much about the areas of England where the Local Government Commission is already under way, but I should not have thought that anyone who is keeping half an eye on the map for England would have failed to see that it was not proceeding without controversy. Scotland is much smaller. There are fewer authorities. It is not like the
1516
time before the Wheatley Commission when there were no fewer than 426 councils in Scotland. The position now is different.
So far as concerns water and sewerage, we have three authorities. I hope noble Lords appreciate that we have spelt out that they will be public water authorities. They will have boards presiding over them. With that, and the other exception of a national system to run the Reporter service for Scotland, no other powers are being taken away from local government, and none of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested, is being taken into the domain of the Secretary of State.
As I said, the police and fire authorities are to remain the same. As I said in the Statement, there will obviously have to be some statutory obligation for the oversight of police and fire authorities. For example, under our proposals for Strathclyde it is envisaged that there will be some 10 local authorities for which there will have to be joint statutory arrangements. In addition, there may be many joint agreements. Enabling lead authority roles may be taken up by different local authorities, but we do not intend that there should be other statutory arrangements.
It is estimated that there will be a saving of some £65 million. That comes essentially from the predicted reduction in the number of local government employees. It is estimated that reductions in the range of 700 to 2,200 will bring about that significant saving.
We spell out in the White Paper what we consider the transitional costs will be. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, might have been gracious enough to concede that every time the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Tom Clarke, turned round he added a further £100 million to the cost of the transitional arrangements. He ultimately reached a figure of £600 million. On any estimate, that was grossly off the mark. We expect that the transitional costs will be recovered within four to five years.
The White Paper will undoubtedly excite a great deal of interest in Scotland: I hope that it does. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that it was partisan. With his title, I should have thought that he would have rejoiced that Monifieth is to return to the County of Angus. If he thinks that only those parts of the country where there is a strong Conservative presence will be affected, I remind him—if he needs reminding —that of the vigorous campaigns fought in Scotland to change the local government map, no campaign was fought more vigorously than that in Rutherglen, led ably by its Labour Member for Parliament.
When we speak of counter-balancing, we envisage that there will be enabling arrangements. As there has to be some sharing of specialist services, it is believed that in those cases it is useful to have one or two authorities around the cities which are more likely to provide such services so that a sensible and sustained partnership can be established. Finally, the noble Lord asked when there would be a debate on this matter. I do not fashion out any enthusiasm for such a debate before the House rises this summer.
4 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I offer my noble and learned friend congratulations from one part of Scotland and ask him to pass them on to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was only in 1974 that a body which was truly representative of the whole of the Highlands of Scotland was created. That was the Highland Regional Council. I am delighted that the Secretary of State and his team decided to pursue that creation and take it further. Whatever may be said about the small districts —and we all respect them intensely for what they have done —they did not have the clout to deal with the Scottish Office. I am delighted that the Highland Regional Council, or its successor similar in idea, will remain.
I am relieved at the proposal relating to water. The idea of introducing private funding for the creation of sewage disposal works and so forth is very good indeed. But perhaps I may also offer a word of advice. When the previous re-organisation took place, the officials at large in all the many authorities in Scotland took the Government to the cleaners. They managed to set up for themselves an organisation which ensured that some of them were able to take early retirement and then return to their jobs at a greatly increased salary. The greatest care must be taken, otherwise many of the envisaged economies may go by the board when dealing with staff. I welcome the Statement, and I congratulate the Government on their initiative.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray for his word of advice. Those of us who recall the previous local government re-organisation in Scotland remember with concern what happened with some employees. They managed to make a successful career out of changing jobs and improving their salaries while continuing to do the same thing. It is ultimately for local authorities to determine the number of their employees. We are alive to the problem on which my noble friend proffered advice.
I am also grateful for my noble friend's comments on our solution to water and sewerage in Scotland. I am grateful to him too, coming from the Highlands, for his support for the proposal that Highland Regional Council should remain as a local authority. There is a strong sense of Highland identity and we believe that that can be built upon. As he will appreciate, when one looks at breaking up the Highlands into smaller constituent parts the problems immediately become obvious. For example, the population of Sutherland is only some 14,000 and Caithness some 26,000. If those regions were to be extracted it would be impossible for them to run a viable local authority with the full range of services. I doubt whether Caithness and Sutherland, despite their parliamentary connection, would be particularly enthusiastic about being a joint authority.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is a great mistake to talk about single tier authorities for the simple reason that Scotland has never had single tier authorities? Before the 1974 re-organisation Scotland had three tiers of local
1518
government; they were district councils, large and small boroughs and county councils. This proposal is in the form of an experiment because we have never had single tier authorities.
Is the Minister further aware that, while I understand the anger of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I am much more generous? Mine is an attitude of pity—pity that the Scottish Conservative Party has had to resort to the gerrymandering of local authority boundaries in order to try to obtain control of the areas where people will not vote Conservative. But all the gerrymandering of the boundaries will not change that. Therefore, the Government should have a second look—and look more constructively—at the proposals that they have published.
Perhaps I may raise with the Minister the specific issue of a local authority for the Stirling area. I have a great affinity with Stirling, having represented it for 13 years before the Boundary Commission denied those good people the benefit of my services. Is the Minister aware that the proposal for Stirling will leave it as the poorest local authority in Scotland, and possibly outside too, for the simple reason that it has no rateable value base and no industry whatever and it will be side by side with the Falkirk-Clackmannan authority, which will be the richest local authority? The net effect will be that shopkeepers in Michael Forsyth's constituency will find their council tax multiplying 10 times to pay for the folly of the Conservative Government's scheme.
When the Conservative Government re-organised local government in Scotland in 1974 they reduced by 50 per cent. the number of local councillors. The bureaucracy increased by 100 per cent.; the democratic input was reduced and the bureaucratic input was increased. How many councillors are there in Scotland and how many will be left as a result cf these proposals?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not like my use of the word "return" I am happy to retreat from it. The proposal establishes a single tier of local authorities in Scotland. It looks nothing like the local government map before the Wheatley changes, when there were some 426 authorities. If there is widespread support in Scotland, as I strongly believe that there is, for our approach, I am confident that those who examine what we are doing will realise that, far from this being a gerrymandering exercise, it makes good sense.
The example of Stirling upon which the noble Lord seized, and his indication that it is very different in make up from its neighbouring area of Clackmannan and Falkirk, clearly indicates to me why there should be separate local authorities. There is a rural hinterland in Stirlingshire which is not, mirrored in Clackmannan or Falkirk.
The noble Lord asked about the number cif councillors. The precise figures are given in the document and the noble Lord will have an opportunity to see them. It is envisaged that there will be a reduction from the present 1,600 to about 1,200. In our view, that will be more than a sufficient number of councillors to carry out the task, in particular as we

1519
wish to impress upon them that they should not continue with the culture of local government in Scotland as it presently exists but increasingly should turn to the idea of being enabling authorities, purchasing services to provide a better quality of service for those who live in their areas.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, although the leaking of the draft document to the press was irresponsible, it provided the opportunity to sense in advance a reaction in Scotland to the proposals? Does my noble and learned friend further agree that in many areas local people are already viewing the proposals as a direct response by the Government to their heartfelt wishes? Will he accept that in Tayside there is considerable satisfaction that Monifieth is being returned to Angus?
Politicians are of course protesting or smiling, as the case may be. However, does my noble and learned friend agree that local government does not exist for politicians; it exists for local people? If at the end of the day more local people receive the kind of local government that they find easy to understand and want, these proposals will have fulfilled their aim.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, yes; whoever leaked the map to the Scotsman at the end of last week was irresponsible. But, as my noble friend correctly pointed out, the reactions of synthetic outrage have come from politicians rather than from members of the public. She has only to consider that estimable organ, the Dundee Courier, and the correspondence and responses which have appeared in that publication to see that there is overwhelming support in that small part of Dundee for the return of Monifieth to the county of Angus. I am sure that my noble friend will share my delight that that will happen once the proposals are implemented.
It is important that we should achieve a balance of local accountability while at the same time having a structure of local government which is sufficiently strong to be robust and viable in the delivery of services. It is clearly desirable that services are provided locally but, as I have indicated, we urge councils to adopt, as far as possible, an enabling role where that is appropriate.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble and learned Lord because he has to defend the indefensible. I sympathise with him in having to face the Highlands which will rise up in large areas and tell him that what is on offer is not what is wanted. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that Caithness and Sutherland is a single police division which has one Member of Parliament? It is unitary as regards the Caithness and Sutherland enterprise, tourism and water. Therefore, it is ridiculous for the noble and learned Lord to say that it is good that those matters should all now be put under Inverness, which is a great deal further away and more remote from the electors and the people who use the services.
The noble and learned Lord talks about an established identity. As I drove down to catch the
1520
sleeper train last night, I heard Ross-shire declaring its identity and complaining in resounding and eloquent terms about what it felt was coming its way as a result of the leaks in the Scotsman. The Statement talks about people being nearer to housing, education and social services but the people in Thurso and Wick will be 120 miles away from their centre of government. That is plainly not achieving the most local location possible for a local authority.
I wrote to the Secretary of State quite a long and reasoned letter containing statistics which showed that the cheapest form of local government had been that of Thurso town council when it had its own planning department. That is because it followed a principle dear to Tory hearts; that is, it employed the private sector to carry out some of its functions. Although it has its own planning powers, it employed highly qualified planning consultants in Edinburgh to help with planning matters. That was cheaper than running a planning department. It was cheaper than running a planning department in Wick and considerably cheaper than running a planning department in Inverness.
Will the Minister listen to the local people? I believe that a debate in your Lordships' House is essential before we move from a White Paper to legislation. Otherwise the Government are declaring that they are determined not to listen to the people.
The Minister said that the people of Caithness and Sutherland are not interested in having local government of their own; but, in fact, a pressure group exists already and the district council is against the proposed measures. Therefore, I hope that we shall have a debate on these matters.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we have heard two sharply conflicting views from the Highlands. We are all well aware that there are conflicts of view. However, the noble Viscount has not addressed—and he should address—the fact that Caithness has a population of 26,000 and Sutherland has a population of 14,000. Some extremely sophisticated services are required to be delivered by local authorities and our assessment of the situation is that either of those, separately or combined, are too small to achieve that. Travel distances within the Highlands area have improved dramatically in recent years. However, the noble Viscount should consider that in the Statement which I made and in the White Paper I said that the Secretary of State will ask authorities to prepare and publish comprehensive schemes for decentralisation of management and administration within their areas. It is with particular regard to the Highlands that that proposal is included.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I am particularly glad that the scare stories about water privatisation have been pulled asunder. I should like to ask my noble and learned friend about the three proposed water and sewerage authorities and the membership of those authorities which will remain in the public sector. Has my noble and learned friend given any thought to the composition of those boards? Furthermore, will he

1521
consider, even at this late stage, whether it is possible to ensure that the regional council elections, which are to take place next May, could not be put aside?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, on the latter point, the general consensus in Scotland, after a period of differing views, is that the elections should go forward. It is important to have regional authorities and councillors in place who are still enthusiastic about their task as the transitional arrangements are put in place.
My noble friend is right that there were some ludicrous scare stories doing the rounds in Scotland about water. I hope that the announcement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made today will finally put those stories to rest. The issue of the membership of the boards has not yet been settled by my right honourable friend but I have listened to and will pass on to my right honourable friend what my noble friend said about their membership.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to find that, with my background, this is a subject which will interest me greatly. I had intended to ask only one question and that has already been answered; that is, about the dates of the next regional elections. I wish to reserve my comments until I have seen the document. I have not yet seen it. I did not pay particular attention to what was in the press because I was not certain whether the Government had deliberately leaked information in a wrong form to lead us up the garden path. Therefore, I was prepared to wait until the genuine article was available.
I am sorry that I must contradict my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford. Four cities were single-tier authorities until Wheatley reduced them to the status of a district council. Whatever else may be said, I am fairly certain that the people in the four cities will be quite happy about the change which is to take place. I am sure that my former colleagues in Dundee will be surprised if I did not make that correction.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the single-tier approach that we have taken.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, just leave it at that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I confirm to the noble Lord that this Government would never for a moment indulge in leaking documents in advance of putting them before Parliament.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I welcome the decision to have 28 single-tier authorities. That is very close to the 27 that I recommended to the Secretary of State via the columns of the Glasgow Herald. I might not have drawn the boundaries in exactly the same way, but I believe that that is about the right number.
Is he aware further that I welcome in particular, as did my noble friend Lord Gray, the decision about the Highlands? That is vitally important for the area, both economically and politically. My noble and learned friend will not be surprised to know that I welcome warmly the decision to enlarge Argyll and Bute, my former constituency, to make it a single-tier authority.
1522
Will my noble and learned friend assure me that the staff commission will be a firm commission and that it will not be like the last one? Will he assure me that it will stop any attempt by local authority staff to have a bonanza out of this reform? Lastly, has he given any thought to the question of reasonable remuneration for councillors?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support as regards the Highlands and for Helensburgh being added to Argyll and Bute. There was a powerful campaign for that to be done and I am sure that there will be a great deal of pleasure that it is now a part of that local authority area.
I think that I made my views on the staff commission fairly clear. We certainly understand the point raised by my noble friend and also that raised previously by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. We do not have proposals to offer reasonable remuneration to councillors. The situation is as it was when examined previously. If we are to make such a change, such arrangements are usually done on a UK basis.

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill
4.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason and amendments be now considered. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (64) as first printed by the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 5, page 6, line 7, at end insert:
("(2A) Subsection (I) does not apply where the immediate landlord under the lease is a registered housing association and all the flats in the premises are—

(a) particularly suitable, having regard to their location, size, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and

(b) are occupied by persons of pensionable age or physically disabled persons, and

(c) have special facilities which include the services of either a resident warden or a non-resident warden and a means for calling them.")

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason:
1A Because it is undesirable to exclude premises of the kind described in the amendment from the right to enfranchise.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
The House will no doubt recall that this amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was accepted by the House on Report. Its effect is to exclude from enfranchisement and lease renewal premises where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association and where all the flats in the block are designed as accommodation for the elderly or disabled. So far so good. The record will show that I said at the time that I understood the reasons for the amendment. But the amendment is discriminatory. There is no fundamental reason why housing association developments for the elderly and disabled should be excluded from the scope of enfranchisement. Long leaseholders in such accommodation have as much right as any others to make a choice about taking control of their homes. After all, they are already effectively owners in the same way as any other long leaseholders.
It has been suggested that long leaseholders in that type of accommodation do not really want to enfranchise; they simply want to extend their leases. However, the amendment would also exclude such tenants from the right to lease renewal. As your Lordships will recall, an amendment was made in the House which gives long leaseholders the option of renewing their leases or enfranchising. There is no justification on that ground for the exclusion of housing designed for occupation by the elderly and the disabled.
However, perhaps even more important, since the Report stage both Age Concern and the Association of Retired Persons Over 50 have expressed their dismay at the exemption from enfranchisement of such developments. They are concerned for the leaseholders living in badly managed blocks who are angry and frustrated to discover that they will not now be able to take control of their property. The claim that long leaseholders in blocks designed for the elderly and disabled are not interested in enfranchising is not true. Bad management does exist in such blocks, and there can be no justification for preventing the long leaseholders from taking control of their homes.
It is true that the opinion of the House was not properly tested in the way that it should have been. I do not believe that it is the will of your Lordships' House that such a discriminatory amendment should be included in the Bill; indeed, in another place a clear majority (243 to 148) disagreed with the amendment on a Division.
The amendment is not only discriminatory, it is also wrong in principle. Further, it is unwanted by the very people whose rights it purports to interfere with. It is unreasonable. Therefore, I hope that the House will now agree with the other place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have to say that I believe many of us—and I do not mean just
1524
those of us on these Benches—will be rather dismayed that we are being asked to accept the rejection of our amendment by the other place. The amendment would have prevented the enfranchisement of sheltered housing held on leasehold and thus would have prevented the risk of losing such sheltered housing in the future for the elderly.
There is all-party agreement on previous legislation that housing designed for the elderly with wardens and wheelchair access—I emphasise that we are not just talking about converted bungalows but about sheltered housing with wardens —should remain for the elderly. We all know that the number of over-75s is growing rapidly; indeed, by the year 2001 there will probably be a million over-85s in the country. If they are to enjoy care in the community as they would wish, rather than residential care, we need to increase and not reduce the supply of sheltered housing.
The Minister made two points. He said, first, that the elderly should not be exempt from the right to enfranchisement because that would be discriminatory. But on numerous occasions whenever the issue has been discussed in the past we have made precisely that decision—that is, to discriminate against some elderly people now in order to protect the rights of many more elderly in the future. For example, we did so in this House on an all-party basis. We agreed that local authority rented sheltered housing should be protected from the right to buy. Secondly, we agreed that housing association rented sheltered housing should be protected from the right to buy. Moreover, we all agreed that housing association leasehold sheltered housing should be protected from the right to buy where it has enjoyed housing association grant from government.
However, here, where we have housing association leasehold sheltered housing which has not received government grant, but very often contributions from charities to enable the warden services to be provided, such housing may now be bought outright and, in time, when children and grandchildren realise the asset, will be permanently lost for the use of frail and elderly people.
The Government's second argument is that, in any case, such housing is protected by covenants. However, covenants are sometimes frail vessels. They are obviously subject to mutual agreement between leaseholders and freeholders. Indeed, it is precisely because of the inadequacy of covenants to protect tenures and such arrangements that, when we talked about heritage property, the Government were not merely content to rely on covenants but agreed to introduce estate management schemes. They accepted amendments from all parts of the House on an all-party basis to strengthen the provision because it was accepted that covenants were not enough. If covenants were not enough for heritage areas, they are even less appropriate a device to ensure that leasehold sheltered housing for the elderly remains available for them.
In Committee, the amendment had all-party support. It had support from the Conservative Benches and the Cross-Benches, as well as from the Opposition Benches. When the matter was pressed to

1525
a Division to ensure that the provision was introduced into the Bill, I believe that we were acting in the finest tradition of an all-party revising Chamber, thinking to the future. When the Government failed to put in Tellers, we naturally assumed that that was because of the strength of support of our argument and that, effectively, they accepted the amendment. But, alas, it was not because the Government were attentive to our arguments; it was because the Government were very inattentive to our procedures.
It was a wise amendment. I believe that the Government in another place have been foolish and short-sighted to reject it. It is not a political issue; it is a care-in-the-community issue in which we are trying to protect the well-being of elderly people in the future. I suppose that we can only acquiesce. However, I do not believe that there is any Member of the House—apart, that is, from those on the Government Front Bench—who does not believe that to accept the rejection of the amendment by the House of Commons is profoundly unwise.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for her support for the amendment which I moved. I am aware that in moving it I did so with, as the noble Baroness has said, the support of many noble Lords. I express my profound disappointment not only with the response which the amendment obtained in another place but also with the comments of the Minister. He said that it was clearly not the will of this House that the amendment should be included in the Bill. How can he say that when it was the Government who failed to give your Lordships the opportunity to express opposition to the measure?
The Minister has said that the amendment is discriminatory. The Commons reason for disagreeing with the amendment states:
"it is undesirable to exclude premises of the kind described in the amendment".
I must tell the Minister that discrimination relates to people. The Minister has mentioned the balance we must find in treating people of different ages and different circumstances differently and dealing with a particular housing matter. I spoke for the National Federation of Housing Associations in moving the amendment and in my mind the balance came down in favour of attempting to preserve such specialist housing stock as we have. The amendment was not an attempt to discriminate against elderly people. I would certainly not wish it to be seen in that light. Were there more specialist housing stock, the matter would simply not have arisen. The amendment itself was based on legislation which already exists—the right to buy legislation—from which is excluded such stock. To suggest that this amendment was in some way off the wall and an objectionable way of going about things is to question the very legislation to which your Lordships agreed some seven years ago. However, tempted as I am to test the opinion of the House on this occasion because it has not been tested, I must
1526
accept that Members at the other end of the corridor have expressed an opinion that we shall sadly have to accept.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, like the two noble Baronesses who have spoken, I am indeed sorry that, another place should have rejected your Lordships' decision on this matter. The case has been strongly made out for saying that provision for the elderly and infirm should be protected and kept for that purpose. That, as I understand i t, was the reason for the original amendment. It is therefore a great pity that another place should apparently have disregarded those considerations. It is perhaps typical of these days that where real social concern for protecting the interests of those who are vulnerable in one way or another arises, it is your Lordships' House rather than another place which concerns itself with that. Whatever else we do, that is the message we might send to another place in the light of its decision on this matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I believe nearly all of us would agree that the purpose-built sheltered housing schemes with wardens, which are the subject of this amendment, fill a vital social need given our rapidly ageing population. It would be a great pity to do anything which fragmented these schemes or which for that matter discouraged housing associations from providing them. The Government have on earlier occasions made soothing noises about restrictive covenants, but they can be varied or discharged by the courts. A court's attitude to any particular arrangement cannot be predicted in advance. As regards these kinds of developments, there is surely practically no question of bad or inefficient management. The Minister denied this, but I cannot believe that housing associations are wicked or rapacious landlords.
Furthermore, leaseholders will have bought their flats or maisonettes willingly, with their eyes open and with no hope or thought of enfranchisement. Therefore the Government's rejection of our amendment must be either doctrinaire or opportunist. I say opportunist because presumably they think the:r move will be electorally popular. But as the prospect of getting rid of a bad landlord will rarely enter the equation, the Government can only have made their assumption on the basis that grateful leaseholders will be able to obtain their freeholds at a bargain price to pass on eventually to their descendants. However, although a few wealthy people in Belgravia will indeed be able to obtain freeholds at a bargain price, this does not hold good for the majority of leaseholders.
Since the last time that we debated this Bill, a highly respected firm of estate agents has published its conclusions. That firm has no axe to grind. It does not oppose the Bill and indeed the valuaLion departments of the firm stand to benefit considerably from the passage of the Bill. The firm states, among other things:
"The publicised aims of the legislation will not be fulfilled. Windfall gains will be greatest for those with the most

1527
expensive properties. The legislation will leave certain leaseholders in a far worse position than they are currently and leaseholders with long leases"—
that is, leases with over 90 years to run—
"will make little or no gain and will probably have to pay more to enfranchise under the Act than it would cost them to buy the freehold in the open market".
It would seem the Government's victory is a hollow one.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we did not make many amendments to this Bill and most of those that were made were fairly innocuous. This amendment, which has not been accepted in another place, was one of those amendments of principle intended to benefit people who need our help. It is deeply regrettable that the Government persuaded Members of another place not to accept it. Normally we ask another place to think again only once, but there are very rare occasions when we could ask it to think yet again. Unless there has been some unholy conspiracy within the usual channels, I should be very glad to support any move that there is to make the House of Commons think yet again.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am much saddened by what has been said this afternoon, particularly by so many of my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Renton has just said that we had not amended the Bill much. But some 300 amendments went from this House to another place. They were amendments of fundamental importance on leasehold extension; a residency test; inheritance tax exemption; and on protecting cathedral closes. Those were important amendments. Amendments were also made to help charitable housing associations which were put forward and indeed supported by my noble friend himself. It is not true to say that the House did not do its job extremely well in revising this legislation and putting forward amendments that were accepted by another place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad my noble friend has pointed out that we did amend 300 times, but that is not out of the ordinary these days with the kind of Bills that are sent to us from another place. But most of the amendments that were made were made by consent and were made to improve the Bill. There were some controversial amendments made but not many. This is one which essentially in the opinion of both sides of the House could well have been accepted. I think it is regrettable that it was not.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe there are some fundamental misconceptions about what this amendment deals with. It deals only with long leaseholders; in other words, those elderly people who may well have already been given a lease for 70 or even 100 years. In the rest of the Bill we have given people the right to enfranchise if they have a lease of that length. Why is it that we cannot do that for elderly people, particularly in view of the fact that enfranchisement itself has no effect on the terms of leases of those tenants? Much has been said on this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that restrictive covenants were frail vessels. I do not think
1528
that they are. They can be altered only with the agreement of all parties to the lease. If all parties to the lease agree then why should they not do so?
The amendment will affect only a very small number of leaseholders because it does not exclude all flats designed for the elderly or disabled but only those where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association. The numbers affected will be limited still further because most property let on long leases by housing associations is let under the leasehold schemes for the elderly. Those are shared ownership schemes in which the maximum share a tenant can purchase is 75 per cent. Therefore, such leases would not qualify for enfranchisement or lease renewal in any case because a tenant must own 100 per cent. in order to qualify.
Finally, perhaps I may turn to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I was very surprised by his speech. When I opened the debate I said that we had received representations both from Age Concern and the Association of Retired Persons Over 50 which, as organisations which are supposed to represent the elderly, were deeply distressed by the amendment. It was on the basis of their representations that the other place rejected the amendment. I believe that it would be very strange if this House did not do the same.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
2 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Effect on initial notice of designation for inheritance tax purposes and applications for designation
(".—(I) A notice given under section I I shall be of no effect if on the relevant date the whole or any part of.—

(a) the specified premises, or

(b) any property specified in the notice under section 11(3) (a) (ii), is qualifying property.

(2) For the purposes of this section the whole or any part of the specified premises, or of any property specified as mentioned in subsection (1), is qualifying property if.—

(a) it has been designated under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (designation and undertakings relating to conditionally exempt transfers), whether with or without any other property, and no chargeable event has subsequently occurred with respect to it; or

(b) an application to the Board for it to be so designated is pending; or

(c) it is the property of a body not established or conducted for profit and a direction has been given in relation to it under section 26 of that Act (gifts for public benefit), whether with or without any other property; or

(d) an application to the Board for a direction to be so given in relation to it is pending.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) an application is pending as from the time when it is made to the Board until such time as it is either granted or refused by the Board or withdrawn by the applicant; and for this purpose an application shall not be regarded as made unless and until the applicant has submitted to the Board all such information in support of the application as is required by the Board.
(4) A notice given under section 11 shall cease to have effect if, before a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the notice, the whole or any part of.—

1529

(a) the specified premises, or

(b) any property specified in the notice under section 11(3) (a) (ii),

becomes qualifying property.
(5) Where a notice under section 11 ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (4) above—

(a) the nominee purchaser shall not be liable for any costs under section 29; and

(b) the person who applied or is applying for designation or a direction shall be liable—

(i) to the qualifying tenants by whom the notice was given for all reasonable costs incurred by them in the preparation and giving of the notice; and

(ii) to the nominee purchaser for all reasonable costs incurred in pursuance of the notice by him or by any other person who has acted as the nominee purchaser.

(6) Where it is claimed that subsection (1) or (4) applies in relation to a notice under section 11, the person making the claim shall, at the time of making it, furnish the nominee purchaser with evidence in support of it; and if he fails to do so he shall be liable for any costs which are reasonably incurred by the nominee purchaser in consequence of the failure.
(7) In subsection (2) as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to designation under section 34(1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Finance Act 1975 or section 77(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Finance Act 1976 as they apply to designation under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; and

(b) paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to a direction under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 as they apply to a direction under section 26 of that Act of 1984.

(8) In this section—

"the Board" means the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;

"chargeable event" means—

(a) any event which in accordance with any provision of Chapter II of Part II of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (exempt transfers) is a chargeable event, including any such provision as applied by section 78(3) of that Act (conditionally exempt occasions); or

(b) any event which would have been a chargeable event in the circumstances mentioned in section 79(3) of that Act (exemption from ten-yearly charge).")

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
2A Line 52, leave out "as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1)".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A to Lords Amendment No. 2.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 form part of a group of amendments designed to prevent the break-up through enfranchisement of those historic estates with exemption from inheritance tax. The original amendments were introduced at short notice and at a late stage in our consideration of the Bill. On reflection we felt that some refinement was appropriate and Commons Amendments Nos. 2A and 3A remove unnecessary words. The amendments do not alter the policy; rather they improve its application by applying all aspects of the exemption to properties where designation under previous legislation is still pending.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A to Lords Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
3 After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
Exclusion of right in case of property transferred for public benefit etc
(". After section 32 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
"Property transferred for public benefit etc.
32A.—(1) A notice of a person's desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part shall be of no effect if at the relevant time the whole or any part of the house and premises is qualifying property and either—

(a) the tenancy was created after the commencement of Chapter III of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; or

(b) (where the tenancy was created before that commencement) the tenant would not be entitled to have the freehold if either or both of sections 1A and 1B above were not in force.

(2) For the purposes of this section the whole or any part of the house and premises is qualifying property if—

(a) it has been designated under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (designation and undertakings relating to conditionally exempt transfers), whether with or without any other property, and no chargeable event has subsequently occurred with respect to it; or

(b) an application to the Board for it to be so designated is pending; or

(c) it is the property of a body not established or conducted for profit and a direction has been given in relation to it under section 26 of that Act (gifts for public benefit), whether with or without any other property; or

(d) an application to the Board for a direction to be so given in relation to it is pending.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above an application is pending as from the time when it is made to the Board until such time as it is either granted or refused by the Board or withdrawn by the applicant; and for this purpose an application shall not be regarded as made unless and until the applicant has submitted to the Board all such information in support of the application as is required by the Board.
(4) A notice of a person's desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part shall cease to have effect if—

(a) before completion of the conveyance in pursuance of the tenant's notice, the whole or any part of the house and premises becomes qualifying property; and

(b) the condition set out in subsection (I) (a) or (as the case may be) subsection (1) (b) above is satisfied.

(5) Where a tenant's notice ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (4) above—

(a) section 9(4) above shall not apply to require the tenant to make any payment to the landlord in respect of costs incurred by reason of the notice; and

(b) the person who applied or is applying for designation or a direction shall be liable to the tenant for all reasonable costs incurred by the tenant in connection with his claim to acquire the freehold of the house and premises.

(6) Where it is claimed that subsection (1) or (4) above applies in relation to a tenant's notice, the person making the claim shall, at the time of making it, furnish the tenant. with evidence in support of it; and if he fails to do so he shall be liable for any costs which are reasonably incurred by the tenant in consequence of the failure.
(7) In subsection (2) above as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (I) above—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to designation under section 34(1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Finance Act 1975 or section 77(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Finance Act 1976 as they apply to designation under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; and

(b) paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to a direction under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 as they apply to a direction under section 26 of that Act of 1984.

(8) In this section—

"the Board" means the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;

"chargeable event" means—

(a) any event which in accordance with any provision of Chapter II of Part II of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (exempt transfers) is a chargeable event, including any such provision as applied by section 78(3) of that Act (conditionally exempt occasions); or

(b) any event which would have been a chargeable event in the circumstances mentioned in section 79(3) of that Act (exemption from ten-yearly charge)." ")

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
3A Line 69, leave out "as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1) above".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A to Lords Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A to Lords Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
4 After Clause 85, insert the following new clause:
Property within cathedral boundary
(". There shall be no right under Chapter I or II to acquire any interest in or lease of any property which lies within the precinct boundary of a cathedral church, within the meaning of the Cathedrals Measure 1963.")
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
4A Line 3, leave out from "which" to the end of line 4 and insert "for the purposes of the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 is within the precinct of a cathedral church."
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to the Lords Amendment No. 4.
It was the will of this House at an earlier stage that property within the precinct of a cathedral church should be exempted from collective enfranchisement and lease renewal under Chapters 1 and 11 of the Bill. We decided that we did not wish to oppose that amendment on consideration in another place, but we felt that as drafted it was not entirely satisfactory. The difficulty lay with the imprecise nature of the term "precinct boundary". We foresaw disputes about whether buildings fell within the scope of the precinct and therefore were exempted. That is why we decided to modify Amendment No. 4.
We looked at a number of options when deciding how the intention of Amendment No. 4 could best be
1532
made clear. We concluded that the most satisfactory change would be to use the definition of "precinct" in the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990. This places a duty on individual cathedral authorities to submit to the Cathedrals Fabric Commission a plan indicating the extent of the cathedral precinct. Once the plan is approved by the commission, the precinct boundary is defined. That seems to us a fair and sensible way forward.
Naturally, we have sought the views of the Church Commissioners, the General Synod and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission itself. I am pleased to say that they agree that clarification of the meaning of precinct would be helpful and agree that the solution we propose is acceptable.
I believe that the amendment made to your Lordships' amendment in another place will achieve the aim of excluding property within cathedral closes in a far more satisfactory manner than the original drafting of Amendment No. 4 would have allowed. I hope that the House will agree.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to Lords Amendment No. 4—(Lord Strathclyde.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are grateful that the Government have not tried to reverse a decision that was taken in this House on a Division but have tried to clean up the amendment in another place. I fully accept that the Cathedrals Measure 1963 does not define precisely the precincts of a cathedral church and that the amendment which another place has made to our amendment referring to the Care of Cathedrals Measure improves the drafting.
As the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, under Section 13 of the Care of Cathedrals Measure it is,
"the duty of the administrative body of a cathedral church to prepare a plan indicating the extent of the land surrounding the cathedral church",
and it must do so within two years of the 1990 measure being passed. Since that provision is now being included in a statute on leasehold reform, can the noble Lord tell the House how many cathedral church administrative bodies have defined the precincts of their cathedral in the terms of the 1990 measure? If the answer is not many, a few or a majority, then it seems that we are left with a slightly unsatisfactory situation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as I had something to do with the carrying of the amendment which exempted property in cathedral closes from the provisions of this Bill, I should like to say that, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I am very pleased that the Government have accepted the amendment, subject to minor alterations. I am sure that all deans and chapters will be equally grateful, subject to the noble Lord being able to answer satisfactorily the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, subject to the answer which my noble friend will give to the very pertinent question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, the proposal seems to me an improvement in the drafting of the Bill. It is certainly to my mind a clearer provision than was originally included. Subject

1533
to my noble friend's confirmation of the number of cathedrals which have complied with the precinct provision, this appears to be an improvement.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I too take the opportunity to thank the Government for accepting the amendment. I was on my feet when the Lord Chairman commendably put the Question on the previous amendment, so I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for accepting Lords Amendment. No. 2. The Government's acceptance of that amendment has been warmly welcomed by many organisations concerned with the heritage. I believe that the Bill is better as a result.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a pertinent question. The problem was that under the original amendment precincts were not defined at all. It was not a matter of their not being defined precisely. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right in saying that some of the 41 cathedrals in England and Wales have been tardy in submitting plans. To date 10 have yet to do so. Therefore, properties will not be exempt from collective enfranchisement or lease renewal until such time as the boundaries of any precinct are agreed by the commission.
The Church itself is well aware of the situation. I believe that it is preferable that we deal with the legislation this way round. It will be up to the cathedral authorities themselves to get their act together to produce the information which is required in order to have the protection offered under this legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Lottery etc. Bill
4.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 20 [Apportionment of money in Distribution Fund]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 50A:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall allocate the balance in accordance with subsections (3) and (4) below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 50A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 A, 52, 54, 57, 58, 60, 64, 92 and 93, and, in order to make sure that they are clearly in the same group, to the notice which has been given that we wish to oppose the Motion that Clauses 27, 37 to 40 and Schedule 6 should stand part of the Bill. That sounds complicated but it is not.
The amendments have the same effect: to take out a quite unnecessary piece of vainglory which has been put into the Bill—I do not know at whose suggestion. No one has confessed to having had the bright idea of the Millennium Commission. It is patently a nonsense. The provision ought never to have been in the Bill. As it is set up, the Millennium Commission is not only an additional and quite unnecessary quango; it is also quite conspicuously and deliberately a political quango. It has 10 members of whom two are Ministers of the Crown, and one is to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. I note that Members of the Committee from the Liberal Democrat Benches have an amendment to extend the nonsensical nature of the quango. However, I hope that they will not feel that their attempt to spread the gravy around a little more widely is in conflict with the amendments which follow Amendment No. 50A, which stands in my name.
When is the millennium? Apart from anything else, no one can decide in exactly which year it arises. Is the millennium at the end of the year 2000, or 2001? Alternatively, is it at the beginning of the year 2000? People are booking the River Room at the Savoy and rooms in the Ritz on different assumptions about when the millennium takes place. Let us forget the idea that there is any such thing historically as a millennium. Far more objectionable is the idea that at this time, and presumably after mature consideration, we should be setting up something in competition with President Mitterrand's grand projet. If I know this country well, the grand projet—a second Eiffel Tower, a cone of glass such as is situated in the front yard of the Louvre, an Opera Bastille, or whatever the projects are—will be established in seats which the Conservative Party believes that it might otherwise lose at the most appropriate general election, if indeed there were to be a Conservative Government at that time.
I rather fear that there are people in all parties who would be subject to the same temptation. I include not only my own party, but the Liberal Democrat party too. Such an organisation is bound to be staffed, deliberately to some extent, by politicians. Its members are bound to include people whose political affinities are well known. It is bound to take political decisions about what will best commemorate their own names rather than the 2000th anniversary of the Birth of Jesus Christ.
We have perfectly good provision in the Bill for the arts, sport, national heritage and charities. One of our amendments provides that the money going to those four real purposes—as opposed to factitious purposes —should be devoted to some project which could indeed commemorate a millennium. But the idea of setting up a Millennium Commission and giving it space in the Bill and extra money is a nonsense. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Later in the proceedings in Committee, from these Benches we shall move an amendment that if there is to be a Millennium Commission it would be wrong not to have the Liberal Democrats represented on it. However, I agree with the noble Lord that the Millennium Commission and Millenium Fund are a

1535
nonsense. I shall argue later that they are a nonsense of which we wish to be part, but my contention is that they are a nonsense.
I support the intention of the group of amendments to abolish the Millennium Fund and to redistribute its one-fifth share among arts, sports, heritage and charities. I do not do so as a spoilsport. I hope that at the appropriate date—there is some confusion about it as the noble Lord said—we shall have a multitude of celebrations to mark the end of one millennium and the beginning of the next. I hope that there will be street parties, fireworks and festivals. I hope that by then we might even have something to celebrate: a string of test victories would come in quite handy, or even a successful economy.
There is something about the Millennium Fund substantially in the hands of any Secretary of State which makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. Just listen to the grandiose language of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which states:
"to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium".
There is a ring of monumentalism about it. It sounds a little like potential politically inspired monuments rising on the British landscape. Of course, if one looks around the world there is no shortage of political monuments. There is President Ceausescu's palace called the House of the People. There was that huge statue of Felix Dzerzhinski, the first head of OGPU. It was gratifying to see the Muscovite population pulling down the statue in 1991. Anyone who has had the privilege of going to North Korea will see the numerous statues of Kim-II-Sung. Then there are always the great golden crossed swords on the main highway to Baghdad.
I have no doubt that the Government will tell us that they disclaim any such monumental Ozymandias ambitions. They probably have more modest projects in mind. I wonder what they are; a John Selwyn Gummer garden of rest in Marsham Street; the Redwood Chair of Welsh Language and Literature at the University of Aberystwyth? I put forward those suggestions in jest. It will be interesting to hear from the Government exactly what projects they have in mind for the Millennium Fund.
What sort of projects will they be? It will assist the Committee if the noble Viscount can give the Committee some examples so that the Government can justify to the whole nation that there should be a Millennium Fund. The sum of money involved is potentially very great. On a £2 billion turnover for the lottery, the sum would be of the order of £100 million a year, rolling up. That is enough over five years to create the ultimate discretionary political slush fund: half a billion pounds to be spent on national "feel good" projects. I do not believe that that is sensible. How much better it would be to put the money where there is a good mechanism for decision and where it can do some good: into heritage, sports, art and charities. It is for that reason that we support the group of amendments.
5 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: It has not been easy to arrange the grouping for the amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for slipping in a paving amendment which enables him to take his proposal before what I believe is a rather better proposal in Amendment No. 51, to which we shall come later.
I am not absolutely sure that, given a free choice, I should have chosen this as the best way of celebrating my birthday today. However, if I am to be here, perhaps it is not inappropriate that we should be talking about some kind of celebration. The trouble is that, as has been pointed out, we do not quite know what we are celebrating, nor do we know what form of celebrations there might be.
On the first point, the Government have already agreed that the end of the second millennium is not until the end of the year 2000, but obviously people will regard the arrival of that year as something special. The phrase used in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill that,
"the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium", nicely captures that initial ambiguity.
On the second point, we have been told remarkably little—and we are well advanced with the Bill—about what kind of celebrations the Government have in mind for the quite considerable sums of money that might be in prospect. The Government have said that that should be left to the Millennium Commission, but I think that we are entitled to know more than that. It was in the manifesto of the Conservative Party. I have taken the trouble to look at what was promised about the use of the Millennium Fund. It makes quite good reading. The first item is:
"To restore the fabric of our nation".
What could we have better than that?
The next is to help Manchester with its sporting facilities for the Olympics. I do not wish to be defeatist, but it is just conceivable that Manchester will not hold the Olympics. I hope that the bid which has been put in on its behalf does not rely on a contribution from the national lottery to make it viable.
There is a proposal to nominate some other major city to hold an international trade fair. That is a little unlike the good causes provided for in the Bill, which I find puzzling. Then there is a proposal to provide millennium bursaries for young people and newly retired people—not those who have been retired for some time—who offer their energy to,
"schemes designed to change the face of the United Kingdom by the year 2000".
Some schemes!
I read some of the proceedings of the House of Commons to see whether any addition is to be made. I found one: the Minister concerned said that it might be a good idea to spend money on getting the clocks in the villages and towns of this country to work again. As he quoted Rupert Brooke, it seemed to me that he had in mind particularly Grantchester. One can imagine that it would be a remarkable indication of the arrival of the third millennium that the clock

1537
there should be made to go and commend itself to the distinguished residents of that village, some of whom are known to us.
One absence from the Bill, so far as I can see, is any provision for an endowment reserve for the buildings which will be looked after through Millennium Fund finances. It may be said that that is the intention, but there is nothing in the Bill. I believe, however, that an amendment has been put down. So, although it may be said that a nice new concert hall is to be put up in Wigan alongside the site of the pier, it is not clear who will be responsible for its future upkeep.
I go along with the views expressed about the worth of the Millennium Commission. I have some reservations about the proposal to do away with it altogether. For one thing, for what it is worth, it is a manifesto commitment. For another, it would be quite difficult to police the 5 per cent. deduction from the other four good causes which have been proposed by the noble Lord in putting forward the amendment. I do not think it would he easy for the good causes to identify projects which are suitable to mark the millennium when the Government themselves seem to have little idea of what those projects should be. Speaking, perhaps especially, for charities, I believe that there may be practical difficulties in allocating their 5 per cent.
I still believe that too much money is involved for millennium purposes. So far as one can calculate, in the next few years, something like £400 million would be devoted to that purpose, making certain assumptions. It seems to me that that is far too much. It is a point which I shall argue in more detail when we come to Amendment No. 51.
To summarise, although I sympathise with the general approach of the amendment, I am not entirely happy with it. All I can say is that it is rather better than what is in the Bill at present.
Lord Renton: I am sure that Members of the Committee would wish me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on his birthday and on a most excellent speech. I was interested by it and I agreed with most of it. I very much hope that we shall be able to celebrate his birthday in the year 2000.
There are three strong reasons for celebrating the millennium. The first is to celebrate 2,000 years of Christianity and to encourage us and many of our fellow mortals to carry on for another 1,000 years. That is the first and perhaps the strongest reason. Then, for the great mass of people, whether or not they are Christians, whether or not they are churchgoers, whether or not they are intellectuals, reaching the year 2000 is a great moment in the passage of time. That in itself is worth marking and celebrating.
The third reason, which some Members of the Committee may think the strongest of all, is that it is an excuse for a damned good party. I believe that the Government are right to have decided that there should be some special way of celebrating and that there is no better way of raising the money than by means of a lottery.
As to how much is to be spent on each of the items mentioned in Clause 20(3), we are simply into the
1538
numbers game. As many as there are people, so there will be opinions. Speaking for myself, I am rather glad that the Government have simplified the matter by giving 20 per cent. to each of the five good causes. It saves a great deal of argument to give each the same amount. Speaking for myself, I hope that the Government will stick to it.
Lord Annan: I hope that the Committee will go along with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the amendment. Like him, I support the Government on it. When I spoke on Second Reading, I said that this was a Bill which would bring a great deal of joy, excitement and vivacity to people's lives. That is precisely what I think the millennium proposal will do. Someone will pay for the celebrations for the millennium. It is no good thinking that there will not be any. They will be enormous. Who will pay? The taxpayer? Here is a marvellous way in which we avoid the cost falling on the Exchequer and. it seems to me, on local councils and local villages which at that time can perhaps ill afford to celebrate the event as they would like.
I believe that we are bound to set up a fund of this kind. People say that it is too big a fund. But surely this is a chance for something imaginative to be done in the country, in the North of England and in Scotland, each region perhaps having some major project which has long been wished for by the population. Now at last it will be able to be realised. It is well worth doing for that reason. It will bring joy and amusement to people's lives. If one has a project of this kind, who is to say what the money is to be spent on? I am delighted that the Government have not come forward with precise proposals. What they will clearly do—which they have not always done in the past few years—is to consult the population. There will be a marvellous selection of batty, mad, ingenious ideas put forward, some of which will be really worth while following. I hope that the Government will stick to their proposal and reject the amendment.
Lord Birkett: I wonder whether this is not rather a mean-spirited set of amendments. After all, not all monuments are monuments to vanity. When we had a Festival of Britain in 1951, we built the Royal Festival Hall. Thank goodness we did. To celebrate the millennium we do not have to build a National Theatre or a British Library. But they have been built only in the nick of time. I am sure that plenty of other projects will need to be built; and if they celebrate the millennium, so much the better.
I am very much looking forward to the "millennium party" of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. But I hope that not too much of the money will be spent on that. It should be spent on things which are permanent. Paris does it all the time. Whether or not Paris does it out of vanity, I do not care. That city has the Beaubourg. Whether it is called the Pompidou Centre or not, I care not. It has done an amazing amount for the library service in France, which was never as privileged as our own library service, and indeed for the arts. What it has done for the Louvre is wonderful, and the Opera House in the Bastille is a magnificent structure. Monuments can be of

1539
enormous advantage to the nation, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, enormous fun. I hope that the Committee will not consider these amendments too carefully. They are a little mean-spirited.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should be very grateful if in responding to these amendments my noble friend the Minister would deal with two points. I am generally inclined to the feeling that we should have some celebration of the millennium. But I wonder whether, as the millennium commemorates the two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of Christ, the Churches are being involved. I am sorry to see that there are no right reverend Prelates here this afternoon. I would have hoped, in view of the fact that the very basis of the celebration, the 2000 years, has a religious background and origin, that the Government were consulting with all the major Churches; and obviously with the established Church. As a member of that body I naturally hope that it will be consulted as well as the other major Churches. I very much hope that we shall be told that the Churches will be involved.
I have a little unease about the Millennium Commission. One sets up these bodies with the highest principles and ideals and with the highest approach. But they are apt to grow. It would be a great pity if the Millennium Commission grew into a large, bureaucratic body. I should like therefore to hear from my noble friend the Minister that it is proposed to limit, strictly and firmly, the number of people whom the Millennium Commission will employ. It is of itself a good purpose, but that purpose could be somewhat discredited if it grew into an inflated bureaucracy.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: As my name is down to Amendment No. 58 I should like to speak to that; and, with the leave of the Committee, to save time I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 60A, which is in my name but in the next grouping. As in my view these two amendments go together, perhaps I may address them at the same time. The impact of the amendments is to switch 5 per cent. of the total from the Millennium Fund to charities. Here I am picking up a point put forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale; namely, was it right to have as much for the Millennium Fund as for the others?
I should also like to remind the Committee of all that has been said in this debate about the shortage of funds which otherwise would be likely to accrue to charities because of the amounts going into the national lottery. It is in order to help recoup those losses for charities that I suggest in Amendment No. 58 that there should be an increase from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent., correspondingly making the Millennium Fund suffer a decrease of 5 per cent. by Amendment No. 60A.
I am well aware that some Members of the Committee consider that charities should not be tarnished by any involvement with the national lottery. But that is not my view. My feeling is that, if we are to have the national lottery, charities should be substantial beneficiaries. I suspect that there will be
1540
substantial losers. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that we should not wait for the millennium before we produce a string of test victories; nor for that matter a national football team which can win its matches—and also perhaps some Wimbledon winners. I hope that some of the sports funds will go towards improving all of these activities nationally, as well as at the local level, from where the national winners will come. I should like to commend to the Committee the amendment to increase by 5 per cent. the amount going to charities. I am normally very much taken with the argument of simplicity, which I support in general; but I believe that this case should be one of the exceptions. I hope that we shall agree to improve the amount being attributed to charities.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I do not wish to throw a wet blanket over the joyous news of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the celebrations at the turn of the century. But I must remind the Committee that within 18 months of the turn of the present century we were in deep trouble in the war in South Africa. Perhaps I may also remind the Committee that three years before the turn of this next century we shall be in trouble in Hong Kong. In a situation when six years is a long time to anticipate history, I do not want to be too gloomy. I am bound to confess that I am closer to the year 2000 than some Members of the Committee. I am beginning to wonder whether I shall be able to join in the celebrations.
Lord Redesdale: I am thoroughly looking forward to the year 2000 when, I hope, we can celebrate with a £½ billion party, which perhaps seems a little excessive. I do not think it is necessarily mean-spirited to be against the Millennium Fund. We could be left, way beyond the millennium, with monuments that we regret ever having built in the first place. To give just one indication of the dangers of what could be thrown up in the next few years on a whim because so much money is available, we have only to look at the Albert Memorial, which many people wish had gone down in the great hurricane.
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Redesdale: I am sorry; that is a personal view. It now seems as if it will be very difficult to find the money to carry out restoration. One of the problems with the Millennium Fund is that, because the views behind it are so wide, we could end up with monuments that we did not especially want in the first place.
Baroness O'Cathain: I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment. We are being mean spirited and there is no suggestion that the £400 million or £500 million should be spent on a gigantic party. One of the more sensible suggestions is that there should be projects throughout the United Kingdom, one in each of the regions.
It may be said that £400 million to £500 million is a lot of money. But when one divides that amount four ways, on my calculations we are left with £100 million or £125 million. That will not build us a

1541
monumental project on a huge scale —the cost of building opera houses or some of the grands projets of Mitterrand in Paris are well in excess of £100 million or £125 million. But that should not stop us.
We must have imagination. We are falling into the trap of being extremely petty minded and insular. Other countries throughout the world have grand projects. Look at what Sydney Opera House achieved for the Australians. Some people may not like it. But that was funded out of lottery money. It is a grand project; it is a project of which the people of Sydney, and in fact of all Australia, are immensely proud. We should do something like that.
What do we have? As I said at Second Reading, we have a handful of grand projects; the last one was in 1951, the Royal Festival Hall. We must look back to what the Victorians did in South Kensington with the science museums, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Royal Albert Hall. Over the past 50 years we have done very little of which future generations will be proud. We ought to stand up and say "We are a big country. We are an important country. We are letting our heritage go into decline". But that will be matched by the National Heritage Memorial Fund from the lottery. Let us not blur the edges between national heritage, the arts, charities and sport. They will obtain a similar sum of money over a period of four years. They will be able to produce great tennis players and the means to ensure that our heritage in terms of our cathedrals, museums and indeed the memorial to Prince Albert will be looked after.
This is something different. We must keep it different. Let us have the money ring-fenced to ensure that we can hand something on to future generations of which they will be proud, as the Australians are proud of Sydney Opera House.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am delighted to find such an enormous weight of opinion in your Lordships' Chamber opposing the amendment. I wish to make two points. The first, in reflection of the speeches of my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, concerns the Christian dimension. It is arguable that the only thing that is lacking in western democracies is the utter failure of our spiritual lives in the current century with the advances in medicine and technology. It is hard otherwise to understand how people have failed so singularly to deal with human nature emotions such as self-pity, guilt and so forth. They are all concerned with the spiritual health of the nation. I echo the view that it is deeply saddening that no right reverend Prelates are present to take part in the debate.
My second point is that one of the problems in this country is the shattered confidence that we seem to have. I believe that the symbolism of the millennium, apart from the important Christian significance, is that we must, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, recognise an important moment in time and reflect on where we are going. We must try to rekindle, in a spirit of nationhood, where we might go forward and rekindle our national confidence.
Lord Lucas: I too welcome the Millennium Fund. To my mind it is the key beneficiary of the whole lottery and with imagination, courage and independence it will do great things.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, is troubled by thoughts of,
"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone".
But pride of that kind is no bad thing. I am grateful for the pride of the Pharaohs which has left us the pyramids and not left us grubbing around in the remains of their rubbish tips with toothbrushes.
Viscount Astor: The thought of grubbing around in the remains of a rubbish tip with toothbrushes left me for a moment thinking and I was slow to rise to my feet. However, I should point out to the Committee that the proposal for a Millennium Fund was stated clearly in the Conservative Party manifesto before the last election. It was on the basis of that manifesto that this Government were elected. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, read our manifesto with such care, even though he had to read it on his birthday. It shows his interest in the Millennium Fund.
We believe that these amendments seek to remove something which lies at the very heart of the Bill—the Millennium Commission. The amendments tabled variously seek to remove all provision for the commission from the Bill, or to ensure that the money which would have gone to the commission goes instead to the other distributors,
"for use on Millennium projects".
One of the key features of the Bill is the proposal to create a powerful new foundation which will fund far-sighted works to stand as monument to the civilisation and achievements of the second millennium for the enjoyment of future generations. There are precedents for this great Millennium Commission—the great exhibition of 1851 and the Festival of Britain in 1951—where the foresight of previous generations left us with two great legacies—the South Kensington museums and the South Bank.
I remind the Committee that in 1851 the Liberal Party was in power. The Kensington museums are here today and are doing very well. I remind the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that in 1951 the Labour Party was in power, and the South Bank is also thriving today.
I hope that the Committee sees the opportunity given to us by the national lottery to match the foresight and achievement of previous generations. I do not believe that your Lordships would want to ignore this opportunity to do something really important; to set in motion a series of projects which will benefit future generations and perhaps even earn their gratitude. Do we really want to miss this chance? Do we really want to miss the opportunity that the millennium offers? I think not. We should all realise that it is our historic duty to seize the moment and to look ahead, and to seize this opportunity offered to us.
In order to carry out its work, it is important that the Millennium Commission is allowed to operate as a body with a clear purpose, independent of government. After all, it will have nine members, only two of which will be Ministers. One will he nominated

1543
by the Leader of the Opposition in another place; the remaining six will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. It should be independent of the interests of the arts, sport or the heritage. We are looking for projects which are out of the ordinary and which will, we hope, have importance far beyond the confines of a specific interest or group. Those projects could be on a scale similar to those of which I reminded your Lordships earlier—developments like the museum complex in South Kensington. A national body is needed to mastermind the process, while of course taking as much advice as is available, and in particular from the expert bodies.
The Millennium Commission will not be stuffed with politicians, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. I pointed out that they will be in the minority. It will not be a political slush fund to help whichever political party may be in power.
We recognise that there are two views on when the millennium occurs. The Bill accommodates both of those views by stressing that the Millennium Commission should fund projects for the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. I understand that there is some argument that the millennium may not start until the end of the year 2000. If we think that nobody will celebrate the new year at the beginning of the year 2000, we are mistaken.
I was asked what kind of projects will be appropriate for funding. Again, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, cannot have it both ways. At one point he said that it would be a political slush fund and then I am asked what it will fund. It will be independent. If I said what it would fund, that would put a political slant on it, and we have no desire to do that. The commission will decide what is appropriate. The Bill affords the opportunity for the commission to be independent of government.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. If it is so important for the Government that there should be no political input—the very point that he is making in not specifying the kind of things that might be funded—why then is it important to have two Ministers on the commission?
Viscount Astor: It is important to have some political input. The point I was making is that the political input is a minority. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord some examples that he might find helpful. The commission will be looking to fund a smaller number of big projects as well as a larger number of small local projects and possibly bursaries for individuals. It may be that it will consider an application for a large sports complex of national importance. It may be that it will consider an application for a multi-media arts centre, or indeed a new building for an important charitable enterprise. The commission will be able to choose.
1544
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked about the numbers. The board is small. That is important. The number of staff of the Millennium Commission must be approved by the Secretary of State. He will need the Treasury's consent. That gives a strong indication of the level of control which will be exercised in this matter. And of course there is no reason why the Churches should not be consulted. It is extremely important that they will be consulted. The point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is an extremely important one.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he says that the Millennium Commission will provide joy and excitement. Indeed it will; I am sure that it will. It will also produce something more important than that. It will provide a legacy for the future of which we shall all be proud. It will provide things from which future generations will benefit. They will look back and say that they saw the initiative, they acted and they did something about it. I think that that is very important and I therefore urge the Committee to reject these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I had any doubt that these amendments were right I would have been cured of that doubt by the bombast which has been evoked in the Committee by the suggestion that it might be better to have the money coming from the national lottery allocated by those in the arts and sport, in national heritage and in the charities who know what they are doing rather than there being either direct political appointments or other appointments by the Prime Minister. I must remind the Committee that in terms of the Bill this is a zero sum gain. Any money that goes to the Millennium Fund comes directly from the share that is available for the other four purposes. It does not mean that there is any less money spent on worthwhile long-term projects if the Millennium Fund is to be abolished. It simply means that the money is to be spent by those who know what they are doing rather than by a bunch of people who were put there in order to celebrate the greater glory of government. That is the difference between our amendments and the rest of the proposals.
I look forward to celebrating the millennium. I should like to celebrate the millennium but I shall do so with proper enjoyment only if my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is there to celebrate it with me—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who enters his 82nd year with a very distinguished contribution.
Some of the suggestions being put forward seem to ignore the fact that this is a proposal for a distribution of the funds from a national lottery. On the idea of street parties—I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the value of celebrations through street parties. But state funded street parties? How will the allocation be made? Will the local government finance department division of the Department of the Environment be invited to construct a multiple regression analysis for the allocation of funds for

1545
street parties so that one gets so much per head of population, so much more for young people under the age of 11, so much more for deprivation, and so much more or less according to the average cost of a pint of beer in a particular locality? It is nonsense to suggest that street parties should be state funded in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, wishes them to be. Street parties, if they are going to be any good, will be spontaneous. They will be contributed to willingly and joyfully by the people in the areas.
I accept the Government's argument that they ought not to specify too much in advance what the Millennium Commission should do. The Minister is right to resist, although he did not quite resist, the suggestion of making political input to the Millennium Commission. But the concept of a Millennium Commission as something dedicated only to the millennium, a warring band of people with different regional interests, different cultural interests, different social interests and different artistic interests, does not make sense. It would be wise for the Committee—and the Committee would not be blamed for it in the year 2000—if it accepted these amendments and rejected this unnecessary proposal in the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.50A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Birk. B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bridges, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mulley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dortmand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.[Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.[Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Auckland, L.

Aldington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton,L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bessborough, E.

Annaly, L.

Birkett, L.

Annan, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

1546

Brentford, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas,L.

Butterworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Marlesford, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Milverton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranworth, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Nelson, E.

Dudley, E.

Newall, L.

Dundonald, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Elles, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pym, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Erroll, E.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Foley, L.

Renwick, L

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gibson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Granard, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harmsworth, L.

Harrowby, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hastings, L.

Swansea, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hayter, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hothfield, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Killearn, L.

Wharton, B.

Kimball, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Leigh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No 51 I have to inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 51A to 60A inclusive.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No.. 51:
Page 9, line 18, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) Of the balance—

(a) 23.75 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with the arts,

(b) 23.75 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with sport,

(c) 23.75 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with the national heritage.

(d) 23.75 per cent. shall be allocated for charitable expenditure, and

(e) 5 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium.").

The noble Lord said: In introducing this amendment I shall try not to duplicate the discussion which we had on the previous amendment and I shall be brief. All along I preferred this amendment to the one on which we have just voted. I believe that this amendment stands very much on its own merits. Having listened carefully to the discussion which has taken place, I still remain unpersuaded that the Millennium Fund should properly get the same allocation as the four good causes for which the Bill provides. As I explained in my earlier speech, I accept that there is a manifesto commitment and that there are things which can be celebrated at the millennium, whenever that may be. I certainly do not want to give the impression that we are a mean lot.
I still cannot persuade myself that the provision in the Bill is quite right. I listened with care to what the noble Viscount said about the possible uses of the Millennium Fund and found it interesting that all the examples that he gave fell within the four categories covered in the remainder of the Bill. If he is right, there is an extraordinary risk that the commission will be for ever duplicating the work of the other bodies charged under the Bill with distributing the lottery proceeds and on which they are the great experts. I cannot think that that makes a great deal of sense.
We are talking about quite a lot of money. I do not want again to go over the calculations which were touched on earlier, but for debating purposes we can assume that there might be something of the order of £400 million available for this short-term scheme. We have also heard and been given assurances that there will be no very large staff. There will be a considerable risk of that staff being overwhelmed by the number of applications of varying kinds which come in, with the risk that it will not be possible to give a proper degree of scrutiny to the individual projects and one will end up by spending a great deal of money in too short a time. It is rather like a local authority which discovers near the end of the financial year that it has a certain amount of money to spend which it will lose if it does not spend it. The local authority spends it on totally unnecessary projects. I speak with feeling as we are currently suffering from that situation in my area.
The question of ensuring that millennium projects are grounded on a sure foundation concerns me greatly. Any of the grand designs of which we heard so much so eloquently earlier in the evening will come under intense scrutiny both from real experts and from those who regard themselves as experts. One has only to think of the current argument taking place about the new Queen Elizabeth Gates in Hyde Park on which widely differing views have been expressed. There is quite a risk of controversies of that kind evolving on a considerable scale.
I should be very much happier if the commission had a more limited and more closely specified remit, matched with a more limited budget. So it may take time to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, the projects and programmes are worthy of the celebratory purposes which the Government have in mind. There is a risk that the commission could find itself being asked to fund anything and everything. I
1548
am not suggesting that the fund should be cut out altogether, as the last amendment proposed, but £20 million a year for five years seems to be a reasonably adequate sum for the purposes in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said in moving this amendment. I would have voted Not-Content on the previous amendment if the Government had not had a manifesto commitment at the last election—a manifesto commitment which was not a commitment made by other parties—so that people had an opportunity of voting against it. I feel that the Millennium Fund should be limited in size and used for one or two specific projects only, of which I hope that education will form a part so that students will be able to travel for the benefit of the country as they go through life. We should spend the money on something that will be useful for the nation as a whole rather than on bricks and mortar.
I am sure that the arts, sport, national heritage and charitable institutions will all be undertaking various projects to celebrate the start of the third millennium. I should have thought that they would use the money that they can obtain from this source towards that end because it will be over and above their normal income. At the. same time, we should bear in mind that charities could well lose income as a result of the national lottery. I should have thought, therefore, that it would be sensible to limit the Millennium Fund to 5 per cent. and to increase the share of the other four organisations. They know what is required. They—rather than a body stuck somewhere in the centre of the country and without the opportunity of seeing what is happening around the country—know what is best.
Baroness O'Cathain: It is with great sorrow that I have to argue with my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, particularly on his birthday. It is not a very nice thing to do. However, the reality is that if the Millennium Fund were limited to 5 per cent., as my noble friend suggests, it would probably mean that there would be about £100 million or £125 million for the whole country to mark the millennium with a grand project or projects. Already it has been suggested that there should be regional projects, so we are talking about £25 million for each such project. I am afraid that the sort of projects that can be funded for £25 million would hardly be noticed. The reality of large project funding has probably not sunk home to most Members of the Committee, but the organisation which I head, the Barbican, is in the books for £500 million. I advise the Committee that £100 million would not build anything significant and if that sum were to be divided by four between the four regions, it would be ridiculous.
It is quite wrong to talk about putting more money into the other four categories. They will have plenty of money through the lottery fund. I see the Millennium Fund as being, in effect, capital expenditure as against revenue expenditure for the other four categories. I am talking about ongoing expenditure for which the Government are unable to make up the difference between what they would like to give the arts, sport,

1549
national heritage and charities and what they are actually able to give the arts, sport, national heritage and charities. We should leave the Millennium Fund for something that will be there for generations to come. Although we said all that on the first group of amendments, I feel that chipping away at that sum of money will leave us in the worst of all possible worlds. We shall have something of which we cannot be proud and which will not really mark the millennium or anything else.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. I am always happy to engage in discussion with her in private or in public on my birthday or at other times. She will recall that on an earlier occasion she said that the money ought to be ring-fenced for millennium purposes, whereas the Minister said, in effect, that, on the contrary, it should be spent on precisely the projects for which the other four good causes were set up. I wonder whether my noble friend could comment on that.
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I did not explain myself correctly. What I meant was that that money should, indeed, be ring-fenced and be quite separate. As I have just said, the Millennium Fund could deal, in effect, with capital expenditure, whereas the revenue expenditure—the ongoing expenditure—could be used to keep our existing national heritage monuments up to scratch. We could use it to maintain our cathedrals instead of always having to go cap in hand to the Church of England or whoever, saying, "This roof is falling down. This spire needs attention. These bells need rehanging". Such expenditure could come out of the part of the national lottery fund that is allocated under the heading "National Heritage", whereas the Millennium Fund should be something quite different and new and should be used to mark the celebratory occasion.
Lord Renton: In spite of the interest which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and I have shared over many years with regard to one particular national charity, and having given a good deal of thought to this matter, I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with him on this amendment. It could have a derisory effect if only 5 per cent. of the total—and we do not know what the total will be—were devoted to projects to mark the third millennium.
We need to bear two things in mind in relation to charities. First, in any event, charities are raising money successfully (and have been doing so for many years) in various other ways, such as through covenants which obtain tax exemptions and now through GiftAid above £250. They also raise money through small lotteries. That is the first factor to bear in mind. The other factor is that even if the amendment were accepted, the effect upon charities as a whole would be marginal. It would mean that they would get 3.75 per cent. more of the total than is planned under the Bill. We are into the numbers game, let us face it. As I said on the previous amendment, I think that the Government are right to make the five
1550
categories subject to equal distribution. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Astor will resist the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hate to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on his birthday but I am afraid that I do because I think that to reduce so heavily the amount of money made available for the Millennium Fund would destroy the greater part of its purpose. The 2000 millennium is a tremendous occasion, and if we are to celebrate it at all—and there is an argument for paying no attention to it and for not celebrating it—surely we must be prepared to do so in a fairly spectacular manner.
One or two Members of the Committee suggested on the previous amendment that, as a result of these funds being available, one or two important new buildings should be erected as happened in 1951 and in 1851. Therefore, I think we should resist the amendment. Although one fully understands the reasons and the justification for this proposal in the noble Lord's mind, if we are to celebrate the millennium, we must do it properly—and if we are to do it properly, I am afraid that the amount must be 20 per cent.
6.p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, wonder whether his memory is the same as mine. On one of the earlier days when we were discussing the Bill, I believe that my noble friend the Minister said that a proportion of the money for the Millennium Fund would be used on the other four categories. So would it not be better, rather than travelling around two sides of a triangle, for the money just to travel the shorter and more efficient course along one side?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend's argument, if he thinks it out, seems to point the other way. It is of course for my noble friend the Minister to explain what he meant. I would not presume to act as his interpreter. It may well be that some of the money allocated to the Millennium Fund will overflow into one of the other four categories provided for in the Bill. That would be sensible in the circumstances. But my noble friend Lord Swinfen must understand that that would be only if the ordinary, accepted purposes of the Millennium Fund had first been met. The proposals contained in the amendment would reverse that procedure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Committee did not care for the previous group of amendments. So be it. However I wish now that I had drawn the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the fact that, apart from the other benefits, we would have removed five clauses and one schedule from the Bill. I should have thought that that might have appealed to him.
The debate on this group of amendments, especially from those Members of the Committee opposed to the amendments, is based upon a number of misunderstandings. First, there is the whole issue of grands projets and previous examples. Well, the Festival Hall., the Beaubourg, Crystal Palace and the 1.851 Exhibition did not obtain their money from lotteries.

1551
The money came from the taxpayer or on occasions from public subscription. Secondly, even if they did obtain some of their money from lotteries, there is no reason now why the amount of money going towards the celebration of the millennium should come only from the Millennium Fund.
Members of the Committee have argued that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, would lead to a derisory sum for the Millennium Fund. They seem to ignore the fact that such a sum could well be supplemented from the national Exchequer, local funds, public subscription and sources other than the national lottery. I should have thought that it was in accordance with the Government's view that we want additionality in public spending that other sources of funding would be explored for those projects which are considered by the Millennium Fund.
I find the objections to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, to be ill-founded. I hope that he will succeed in persuading the Government that the amendments are worth taking on board in the Bill.
Lord Redesdale: I should like to comment upon one or two points that have been raised in the debate. One raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, was that £500 million will not go far today in producing a large project. All the examples so far given are of individual projects. They relate to one project at a time in one place. Everyone in the country will be contributing towards the lottery. With the exception of charities, most of the money to be given to the arts, sport and the heritage will, it is hoped, be spent on capital projects. Instead of having one project which would benefit the capital, let us say, would it not be better to have smaller projects all over the country? Would it not be better if the money went directly to the arts, sport and the heritage for projects all over the country and that much less money was given for the exciting projects that could take place in the year 2000?
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may make one or two points following the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Arts funding in this country is difficult. We have all been told that the Arts Council, which handles government expenditure on the arts, will have to reduce its funding to the arts this year by some £5 million. That might not sound a great deal of money, but it means that some companies will go out of business. There is a black theatre company that is on the verge of going out of business; there is an orchestra which is struggling for its life. The arts world does not have a huge amount of money to spend. The money for the arts which will come from the national lottery will make up the deficit between what the arts community wants to enable it to continue and enhance the arts world in this country and what it will be able to do if the current level of government funding persists. It will make up the balance.
We cannot say that we will use the money that is going to the arts to build another opera house, to build this or to build that. I take up the point made by a
1552
previous speaker that the Millennium Fund could be spent in four different ways through the four regions. If we then divide the 5 per cent. by four again, it leaves a piteous sum which is hardly worth spending on a capital project.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, "Oh well, the Kensington museums were not created out of a lottery". He asked whether there was an example of something that had been. There is a good example of what was created as a result of a national lottery. It is the British Museum. It was founded by a lottery. It has 6 million visitors a year. It does not charge for admission. Admission is free. That is a good example of the use of lottery funds.
It is important that in order to carry out its important work the Millennium Commission is allowed to operate as a body independent of government and not in the pocket of particular interests. As I have said earlier, we are looking for projects which are out of the ordinary and which will, we hope, have an importance far beyond the confines of a particular discipline, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
Amendment No. 51 would reduce the commission's share of the proceeds by three-quarters, to only 5 per cent. That is also the aim of Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85. The noble Lords, Lords Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, with Amendment No. 83, seek to remove the statutory protection from the Millennium Commission, which would otherwise prevent any alteration by the Secretary of State under Clause 25 from leaving the commission with less than 5 per cent. of the proceeds. Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 would make it impossible for there to be any change to the percentages to give the commission more than 5 per cent. of the proceeds.
The commission will receive its 20 per cent. share of the funds generated until the end of the year 2000 only. That is a short period of time when one compares it with the life of the national lottery when it is up and running. It is a short period of time if we compare it with how long we believe the national lottery will exist and flourish in this country. There is a power for that length of time to be extended in exceptional circumstances; for example, to prevent a building remaining half finished. It would be unrealistic to expect the commission to fund the several major and lasting projects which it is to be set up to do, and to furnish us with a new heritage to pass on to future generations, on perhaps six years' worth of only 5 per cent. of the proceeds.
No one knows how much the national lottery will raise for good causes. If, in the event, the Millennium Commission has more funds than it can wisely and sensibly use on high quality projects, it will be possible for Parliament to alter the balance at that stage. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, he intends to put the split of funds to Parliament once every Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked me about the four examples I gave. I knew that if I gave any examples I might fall into a trap. Needless to say, I did, and it was a point upon which the noble

1553
Lord, Lord Allen, pounced. The examples I gave were merely illustrative. I could have given an example of a new cathedral for the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, must not read too much into those examples. The Millennium Commission and not the Government will choose the projects.
I hope that earlier I enthused Members of the Committee with the possibilities which the Millennium Commission can offer. I believe that the amendments are not desirable. The Millennium Commission is a new idea which is both worthwhile and exciting. Our debate today has enabled the Committee to discuss important issues about the Millennium Commission, has made them clearer and has addressed many of the anxieties. I hope that if pressed the amendments will be rejected.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I thought that the noble Viscount was treading on dangerous territory when he reminded us that the British Museum was in part funded by a lottery. He might have thrown in Westminster Bridge for good measure. I could have been tempted to expand on why it was decided to give up the funding by lotteries but that would not make comfortable hearing while we are discussing this Bill. I shall not yield to that temptation.
I was also interested to hear the Minister put great emphasis on the fact that there will be little time for this strange creation. That rubbed in my point that there will not be enough time for it properly to spend the considerable sums of money which will fall to its lot. I also point out that the proposal which lies behind—
Viscount Astor: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. The point is not the period of time the Millennium Commission has to spend the money. If the commission has money left over at the end of the year 2000 it can carry on and spend that money. My point is the short period of time in which the commission will receive money from the distribution of the national lottery.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: It comes as news to me that it is contemplated that the commission will remain in existence for a long time to come. I had thought that the whole concept was that it should reach its decisions during its comparatively brief existence before the end of the year 2000. I agree that if the commission embarks on major projects they will not be finished by that time. I commented earlier on the absence of provisions in the Bill which would cover the maintenance of the buildings which it had managed to erect. But that takes us down a different road.
Incidentally, the proposal involves increasing the allocation for arts as well as for the other good causes. I do not propose to divide the Committee again. I wish to read all the speeches that have been made and possibly return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51A and 52 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 9, line 20, at end insert ("with preference, so far as practicable, to amateur practitioners of the arts").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendments No. 55, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and Amendment No. 56. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will move Amendment No. 55. My Amendments Nos. 53 and 56 are aimed at influencing some of the new money in the direction of participatory activity in sports and the arts in contradistinction to spectator and audience activity.
I remind Members of the Committee of some lines of verse which express what I am trying to urge on the Committee:
"I want to know a butcher paints, A baker rhymes for his pursuit, Candlestick-maker much acquaints His soul with song, or haply mute, Blows out his brains upon the flute".
Members of the Committee will want to know that the butcher's boy plays inside right for his town football team and that the baker's van driver opens the bowling for his village. At one time in our cultural history there was far wider participation in art and sport. One has only to think of music in Pepys's bourgeois circle or to consider what is suggested by the title of the Sheffield Wednesday team. There is also the English water-colour school, one of the glories of English art.
The amendments seek to encourage amateur craft, the amateur orchestra, the amateur dramatic society, the village cricket team, the town football team and so forth. I shall focus on sport. I am afraid that what I am about to say will inevitably sound like the chairman of the school governors at the school's sports prize-giving. Sport and art give entertainment, and rightly so. But that is not primarily why they are subsidised; there are other reasons. If suppose that the primary reason for subsidising sport is the moral qualities it engenders, generally expressed in participatory sport by a word such as "sportsmanship" or the idiom, "It isn't cricket". Undoubtedly the physical advance of the nation is a reason for subsidising sport—again participatory sport. I am glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is again on the Treasury Bench. He has the enviable gift of acquiring a deep suntan while sitting hours on the Treasury Bench. Ordinary people have to go out into the open air to get theirs, and these amendments are designed to help them to do so.
I should like to add three short points. First, I am not wedded to the drafting of these amendments, although I see no reason why they should not pass muster among the people who must administer the law or, indeed, in a court of construction. Secondly, the amendments are entirely consistent with the amendment which will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Indeed, they go very well together. By strengthening and widening the base of the pyramid., the apex, which will be professional, can be raised higher and will be stronger. I doubt whether the noble Lord's amendment is necessary as the Bill stands.

1555
However, if my amendments are carried the case for his amendment will be strengthened and therefore, I hope that he will be encouraged to support them.
The third point is that the amendments are automatically conducive to a wide regional spread in the benefits of the lottery. That was a matter which much occupied Members of the Committee when we last discussed this Bill. I believe that all Members of the Committee were satisfied that as regards England, Scotland and Wales, the noble Viscount's reply was entirely satisfactory. But it certainly did not obviate all the doubts of Members of the Committee as regards the spread throughout the English regions. Focusing on participatory art and sport automatically brings about that regional spread.
Finally, in commending the amendments, I remind the Committee of an advertisement which appeared in the Church Times:
"High Church curate required. Slow left arm bowler preferred".
I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is indeed my duty to speak to Amendment No. 55 which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Donoughue. It is entirely inappropriate that I should do so since I have been successfully avoiding organised sport ever since I was in primary school. The noble and learned Lord has convinced me that his amendment, by giving preference to participatory rather than spectator sports and by giving preference to amateurs rather than professionals, is stronger than my noble friend's amendment and I support the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Lord Renton: I support the amendment. I do so for a reason which has not yet been mentioned. In various professional sports which attract huge crowds, millions of pounds are paid to the professional players. I am not speaking of individuals, although some individuals build up huge fortunes; for example, in the spheres of tennis and golf. We find that one football club will pay as much as £1 million for the transfer of a player to it from another club. I do not see the point of having in the lottery money contributed by the people to swell those funds for professional sport. It is far more important that amateur sport should be encouraged wherever possible, especially for young people.
Lord Howell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. While I have a great deal of sympathy for the point that he was making in relation to football, the noble Lord will appreciate that in a large number of professionally based sports, nothing like those kinds of fees are paid or are available to the participants and yet those sports are a very important part in the sporting life of the country.
Lord Renton: I am grateful for that intervention. The noble Lord is quite right. However, the point that I seek to make is that we must be careful to see that clubs, companies and people that already have huge funds to dispose of as a result of professional sport do not have their funds swollen still further. That is the
1556
only point that I make. One way to ensure that would be to see that the emphasis is on amateur sport, especially for young people. Most of our schools have playgrounds but they are not always sufficiently spacious for a football field. I am thinking of the local education authority schools. Most of the privately run schools—public schools—have plenty of good playgrounds.
For example, these days, instead of every village having a school, one large school is built for as many as half a dozen villages. I know from experience of my old constituency that not all those schools have their own playgrounds. The fund which we have in mind could help to rectify that matter.
Baroness O'Cathain: I believe that the point about encouraging amateurs and youngsters to play more sport and to become involved in the arts is covered in the Bill. Clause 21 provides that 83.3 per cent. will be for distribution by the Sports Council. I have worked with the Sports Council in the past and I know that it encourages amateur sport. It encourages it by giving money and equipment to schools to encourage participation by youngsters in sport. I was heartened to see that the point made by my noble and learned friend, and which also struck me, is covered in the Bill. I may have misread the Bill but perhaps the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong on that issue.
Lord Gibson: Earlier my noble friend Lady O'Cathain reminded the Committee of the dire need of the professional arts. I should be happy to support the amendment if it were not for the word "preference". Surely we can leave it to the distributing agencies to decide where the greatest need lies. If the sense of the words were—and I know that they would not be suitable for legislation—"not forgetting" the amateurs, I should wholeheartedly support the amendment. However, I believe that the words "to give preference" will tie the hands of the distributing agencies too greatly and the importance of the professional arts in their need for funds will be forgotten.
Lord Swinfen: When my noble friend replies, will he advise the Committee whether the types of club about which my noble friend Lord Renton was speaking would count as businesses and, therefore, not be eligible to receive funds under the Bill?
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendments. One can be both an amateur and a participant and in the case of the sport I play—rugby—one can go for a very long time without ever seeing a spectator. I support the idea behind amateur sports being given money in that way. Many rugby clubs are on greenfield sites which are already at risk from developers. Most amateur clubs in the country, especially rugby clubs, have financial problems.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments send an important message to both the Sports Council and the Arts Council. The Sports Council point has been well made. I believe that the word "participation" rather than "professional" is the key to this matter. We should not only think of team sports but

1557
we should think also of sports like golf and tennis which people can play virtually throughout their lives. It is important that some of the money should go to help those sports and the people who play them.
The same is true as regards the Arts Council. The Arts Council is keen on a few major organisations on which it showers its largesse. For example, of the £7.89 million which the Scottish Arts Council disbursed to music associations last year, almost £7 million went to three large professional organisations. That meant that there was very little left to go to all the other amateur and professional musical organisations scattered throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. Therefore, this amendment gives us an opportunity to say to those two bodies that they should cast their largesse as wide as possible.
Lord Lucas: I too agree with these amendments and with what my noble friend has just said. Certainly my personal experience of trying to get money out of the Arts Council for an amateur organisation is that I would rather have applied to the Treasury.
The importance of the amateur culture which underpins both sports and the arts in the country cannot be underestimated. It receives very little support at the moment and this lottery, being a national and public subscription, would seem to be an entirely appropriate way of getting money to it.
Baroness O'Cathain: I should like to make one point about the Arts Council. I think, again, that there is probably some misunderstanding about what the council actually does. The Arts Council is very specific in awarding its grants, especially to the national companies—for example, the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Opera House—that part of the funding it gives should be spent on what it calls "education". The criteria are quite strong. Such organisations must try to visit schools and get them to participate in play readings, in the case of the Royal Shakespeare Company, in role taking, and so on. I believe that much such activity is undertaken by the Arts Council. I would not want Members of the Committee to think that the council only makes big gestures in putting on marvellous operas, or the plays of the Royal Shakespeare Company, for the fat cats of industry.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: I have great sympathy with the point made by my noble kinsman. I had some experience of the subject when I sat on the arts committee of the Gulbenkian Foundation which tried to distribute money to amateurs as well as to professional companies in its early days. It has gone rather further in that direction in recent years. That is why one must not blame the Arts Council for supporting mainly professional bodies and for promoting high standards in art. It is reasonable to leave it to other funding bodies to help amateur productions. I bow to the view of my noble friend Lord Gibson. Perhaps the matter is already covered in the Bill. Will the noble Viscount reply to that point?
Lord Mancroft: I had not originally intended to speak on the amendment. However, having listened to the debate and the noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment, I must say that I agree with the sentiments behind it. It must be better that the funds are distributed to amateurs or participants, whichever way you like to put it.
However, I have two reservations. First, there is the actual wording of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. And, secondly, I wonder whether it is actually necessary to write such a provision on the face of the Bill. I believe that the feeling of the Committee is clear: we would think it better that the funds should not be used to support professionalism in sport but that they should be used to support amateur participation in sport and in the arts.
I do not know quite what trumpet I am blowing. But there is one sport which possibly has not crossed the minds of many Members of the Committee. It is the ultimate community sport in the country, open to people of all ages, from small children to pensioners, to compete on an equal footing. It is marvellous in that it is, and always has been, a complete sport where the sexes can compete equally. I refer, of course, to our greatest national sport; foxhunting.
Viscount Astor: I understand the concern expressed by Members of the Committee not to exclude any category of sport, whether amateur or professional. from the possibility of benefiting from the national lottery. The sports councils will be free to consider applications from either type of organisation on merit. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that the charters of the sports councils already ensure that both amateur and professional sporting bodies may receive grants. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Restating that in the National Lottery etc. Bill is not necessary, nor would it have any particular new force. I hope, with that reassurance, that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will withdraw the amendment that he moved on behalf of his noble friend Lord Donoughue.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is keen for preference to be set in statute for the amateur artist. He has tabled an amendment to achieve that aim. I agree that the amateur artist has long been cherished in our country. Both the amateur and professional sectors of our artistic culture contribute enormously to everyone's quality of life.
However, the distinction between the professional artist and the amateur is not fixed, nor is it always clear. We can all judge that someone who, for example, makes a living from theatre direction is a professional practitioner of the theatrical art. But, in many other areas, artists who do not make a living from their artistic endeavour do sometimes make some money from them. Someone with fine art or dramatic training may live by plying a very different trade but is in no way disbarred from occasionally accepting money for acting, singing, painting or perhaps even giving an after-dinner speech. I am afraid that a statutory requirement such as that proposed by the noble and learned Lord might only mean legal wrangling which would distract the Arts Council from distributing lottery money where it would do most to help us all enjoy life a little more.

1559
The noble and learned Lord is also concerned that participatory sports should benefit to a greater extent than those which are considered spectator sports. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that those who receive the most benefit from sport are often those who play rather than merely watch. But many of us are purely spectators for a number of reasons. Some sports have very high fitness or skill requirements. Indeed, some of us including myself—and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as he said—cannot quite hope to meet such high standards; in fact, we may not wish to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Viscount must not assume that my lack of participation is because I cannot meet the standards; it is because I do not want to participate.
Viscount Astor: I accept what the noble Lord says. It may indeed be the case that he does not wish to participate. However, if the noble Lord had put his mind to it, I am sure that he could have been a great sporting champion in Haringey. Every sport is, by its nature, participatory for those who play it. Whether or not it is also a spectator sport will depend on its popularity and intrinsic interest. I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will accept that a definitive boundary of the sort he proposes would be neither possible nor desirable.
My noble friend Lord Renton was concerned that funds should not go to professional organisations. The aim of the national lottery is to provide funds for the public benefit rather than private profit. We are absolutely clear on that aim. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, there are some professional organisations which do not make a profit and which, because they provide a service for public benefit, should perhaps be eligible to receive funds.
The sports councils and the Arts Council have great experience. That is why we chose them to distribute lottery money. I believe that we must rely on their good judgment to ensure that funds are applied across the country in the way that benefits most people. I am sure that they will look closely at what has been said in the Chamber today.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, talked about suntans and my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that I do not think that sunbathing will ever be considered either as sport or as art; but, of course, it is certainly a pleasure. Finally, I suggest that the amendments are unnecessary. I hope, with the assurances that I have given, that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The amendments were probing amendments. I was particularly anxious to hear the views of both noble Lords who have been so distinguished in ordering the funding in relation to the arts. I am extremely grateful to my noble friends Lord Annan and Lord Gibson. I am only sorry that my noble friend Lord Charteris was not galvanised into making a speech. However, we had the benefit of his advice at the conclusion of the first day of Committee.
1560
I was also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to his feet. Of course, the latter noble Lord has been a distinguished participant in sport.
The debate has sent out a clear message; it has served a useful purpose. I wish to read what has been said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 58 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 9, leave out line 25.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a simple one. It would require a good deal of embellishment if it were to be carried into all parts of the Bill. It is, however, a peg upon which I wish to hang, for a few moments, my worries about the position of charities in this Bill.
At this hour in London Mr. Tony Blair, the principal spokesman on home affairs for the Opposition in another place, is delivering the Goodman lecture for 1993. I hope he will outline, from a Labour point of view, the role of charities in a post-Beveridge, post-Socialist and post-Thatcher epoch. The world is so changeable now in so many ways, socially and economically, that it is not easy for established organisations to find their way, especially when many of their purposes have been attained by other means. However, I speak for no one but myself. I form my own judgment from many contacts among charities and elsewhere.
The charities are the only one of the four main areas of distribution of the lottery who stand to lose from it. The charities have a lot to lose. For one thing, at the present time they are in receipt of state aid to a far greater extent than the other bodies this Bill seeks to help. I believe that charities now receive more than £6 billion a year in tax reliefs alone. It is the growth of charities and charity-giving, and the extension of the concessions which have been given over the years, which have led to this enormous drain on revenue in the present circumstances.
Corporate bodies are included in tax reliefs on charities. That used not to be the case. Concessions are now much more freely available to private charitable giving at a lower level than they used to be. What will happen when the charities are brought within the scope of this Bill? I do not know whether they have come into the scope of this Bill voluntarily or whether they have even been asked about it. Perhaps they have been press-ganged into it to give a varnish of respectability to the whole gambling enterprise. However, if they have been press-ganged into this Bill to make it more respectable from a moral point of view, their position should be reconsidered. One might also consider retaining the second of the charitable purposes described in Clause 41; that is, the non-registered charitable and philanthropic works and purposes, rather than concentrating on registered charities. However, I realise the distinction is difficult to make.
How will charities stand as regards this measure? What will their supporters want to happen? I believe some societies with subscribers and members will have to obtain a definition of their position under the Bill. I believe that in some charities those who are supplying the money and the influence in voluntary work and other areas will want to know where their charity will stand as regards the receipt of money from the national lottery. I believe this will be a tiresome process in certain cases.
We know how divisions can easily arise between traditional supporters and possibly the voting members of charities when moral issues arise. We should look, for example, at the National Trust and the moral issue of hunting. The membership of that body was extended from hundreds of thousands of members to several millions so that those who were not registered subscribers of the National Trust could enter that organisation to register their vote. The National Trust is only just emerging from a serious constitutional rift.
I hope the Minister can tell me what consultation has taken place between the Government and charities on matters relating to their position under this Bill. Has any assurance been given that a future Chancellor of the Exchequer will not regard benefits to charities under this Bill as a justification for reducing charitable concessions for tax purposes to the charitable world?
The Committee may remember that a few years ago Chancellor Lawson introduced into the Finance Bill a clause to restrict tax concessions to charities in the year of assessment to the amount spent on charitable work. That created such a rumpus among the charities and the Charities Aid Foundation, and other bodies, that he had to abandon the idea. Yet there is no doubt that some charities are receiving enormous benefit from investment income which is free of tax and which is being accumulated for capital purposes. I do not blame charities who have carried out their work for many years and who have substantial obligations to staff and officials for benefiting from concessions. They may have workers in the field. The RSPCA, for example, has a payroll of staff in the field of over 1,000 people. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children also has an inspectorate. Therefore, one can understand that charities want to take the same precautions as anyone else who has responsibility for the security of employment and the life work of their staffs.
However, when one sees the capital appreciation that charities are realising at the present time, one is aware they are building up large funds. All of that money is tax free. Charities are in the same privileged position as the occupational pension schemes where tax relief is given on contributions and on interest on investments. Those schemes have similarly built up enormous capital reserves. Their reserves are so big that Maxwell laid his hands on some of them. This is an aspect of the whole matter of charities and taxation that is bound to come under review.
Those in the charitable field receive huge reliefs from taxation. We should also bear in mind local taxation and VAT The Inland Revenue alone paid out to charities £544 million in tax last year. That is
1562
big money. The question arises as to whether charities would be better off working through the regime which is so fully established and from which they receive substantial benefit. Some charities may decide to announce that as a matter of policy they do not desire to receive any money from a national lottery. The fact that the lottery is a gambling exercise will have some influence on that decision.
Personally, I object to the whole Bill, including its slovenly Title. It is entitled the National. Lottery etc. Bill. Is that what we have come to now in drafting Bills? Why not put "etc. etc." and cover everything? I would be more lenient towards the Bill if it had the title which I would give it—"The National Voluntary Levy (with Prizes) Bill". That would separate it from the moral issues. It would avoid much of what will be used against the Bill by those whose prejudices, like mine, go back a long way.
This is not the message to be giving to the people today. It will be still less the message to give to the people by the time it comes to be put into operation. If we are to get through the next winter after the November Budget in any political or economic shape it will be a miracle. I believe that the nation does. not realise how grave the position is with respect to our future. The debate on Maastricht is an indication of how bottled up we are about everything.
The only positive answer that I want from the Minister is that he will make sure that any shortcomings in consultations with the charities are repaired between now and later stages of the Bill. I know the difficulties in obtaining opinions from charities about anything. Many of them do not look. much further than the work which they have seen needs to be done, in which they are engaged and for which they receive support.. I do not blame them. If I were responsible for policy in the RSPCA I would be thinking of cruelty the whole time. I would want to be where there was cruelty. I would not expand the horizons of the charitable world. I would get more money to stop the cruelty. That is what a large number of people are doing in their respective fields of charitable endeavour.
I hope that the charities will be allowed to consider their special interests, which do not apply to the other areas covered by the Bill. They should not be put at a disadvantage. For them, charitable giving is traditional, well established and in many cases profitable. They do their work on the basis of voluntary subscriptions or legacies. The dead finance a great deal of our charitable work today. The interests of those who give to charities have to be safeguarded by those who are carrying on the work, probably in reduced circumstances today.
I plead for the charities to be taken fully into account and for consideration to be given to what can be done to safeguard them and remove their present worries. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We all know and respect the involvement of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby in these matters. However, having heard what was said from this Bench at Second

1563
Reading, he will not be surprised that we do not agree with him. We certainly do not agree with the amendment.
My noble friend is asking, I am sure rightly, that there should continue to be consultation with the charities about the effects of the Bill. There has been consultation, notably with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which does not exactly represent the charities but includes in its membership a large number of charities. Contrary to my noble friend's suggestion, its anxiety is not that many charities will resist the idea of receiving money from a national lottery. It is worried that charities will be net losers as a result of the existence of a national lottery. In other words, the amount which they receive from a national lottery may be less than they lose in other ways.
It so happens that the Minister has been good enough to write to me and to other noble Lords about this issue and the assurances which we sought that there would be proper continuing inquiry into the net effect of the Bill on charity income. I am grateful to the Minister. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, is also grateful to the noble Viscount for what he said. It may be that the amendment gives him an opportunity to say from the Government Dispatch Box what he said to us in his letter of today's date. In that case the amendment will have served a particularly useful purpose.
Lord Swinfen: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has raised an interesting point. The major worry of charities is that they will lose income because people will buy lottery tickets under the misapprehension that the major proportion of what they spend on the ticket will go to charities. We have been given an assurance that advertising and promotion of the lottery will not be allowed to be carried out in such a way that any reasonable person will continue to be under that misapprehension.
However, there are still worries for charities. They are afraid that they will lose because people will spend money on the national lottery that they might otherwise have given to charity. There is also the moral question as to whether it would be right and proper to accept money from a lottery. Some charities today do not accept money which they would consider to be tainted with gambling in any form. Those will probably not apply for funds under the Bill.
The noble Lord also raised the question of additionality and the possibility that funds given to charities as a result of the national lottery might be used to offset funds which they receive today from government or local authorities. On other occasions, and in relation to other subjects, we have been given assurances that that will not be the case and that the situation will be monitored. However, I should be grateful if my noble friend could reassure the Committee on that point when he responds to the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, devoted a great deal of his speech to the question of tax reclaimed by charities. A thought occurred to me while he was speaking. I am not a tax expert or a lawyer so I do not
1564
know the answer, and the thought may be mischievous. But will a charity which is given a grant from this source possibly be able to claim back the tax which the lottery promoters have paid on it? That is an intriguing thought. If that is not the intention of the Government, perhaps they should take a look at the Bill and make certain that some form of money clause is inserted.
Lord Birkett: The spectre of charities losing out as a result of the lottery persists in this Chamber. The Committee may be interested to know that I read today that the Institute of Charity Fundraising Managers revealed in a survey that only one in five of its conference delegates believed that the national lottery would have a significant effect upon their fund-raising efforts. That is very interesting.
In relation to the arts and sport, which are the main or original beneficiaries of the lottery, it is worth reflecting on where charity giving goes. The figures are for 1991, which is the latest year for which complete statistics are available. The amounts received under a list of nine general headings are: medicine and health, £476 million; general welfare, £350 million; international aid, £323 million; animal protection, £108 million; heritage and the environment, £85 million; religious missionary work, £75 million; youth, £15.5 million; arts and recreation, £15 million; and education, £2 million. Therefore, arts and recreation, the two other main beneficiaries, are second from the bottom of the list at £15 million compared with £476 million for medicine. I believe that the 20 per cent. already going to charities is a damage limitation that will be more than enough. I cite those figures to the Committee because I pray that the effect upon charities will be very much less than has been feared.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may begin by answering a number of the questions asked. My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked me about lottery money being additional. We had a fairly long debate on that at an earlier stage, when I gave assurances.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked about consultation. Between the publication of the White Paper in March 1992 and the publication of the Bill, and subsequently, Ministers and officials have had many discussions with charities, including the NCVO, and with grant-making organisations.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen also asked whether charities could get the tax back. The simple answer is no. It is a duty collected by Customs and Excise. It would not be possible, therefore, for charities to reclaim it.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the letter that I wrote to Members of the Committee who spoke on charity issues earlier. I am happy to confirm the assurances I gave in that letter, for the benefit of all Members of the Committee.
During the earlier debate in Committee on amendments concerning the possible effect of the national lottery on charitable income and on the level of the horse-race betting levy, I promised to consider further what should be done in terms of an undertaking to report on those matters. While we do not accept that a statutory requirement to report is an

1565
appropriate or practical way forward, I have considered further what undertakings I can give in those areas. I am happy to give the undertaking that once the national lottery is established the Government will regularly monitor the situation in the area of charitable incomes and the level of the horse-race betting levy. We shall do that in the light of all the information available and in co-operation with all the interested parties. We shall also place a report containing any relevant information each year in the Libraries of both Houses and consider carefully any conclusions that might be drawn.
I hope that that assurance will put at rest the minds of a number of Members of the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does not like the Bill. He does not like the idea of a national lottery. He even voices disquiet over the distribution of lottery money to charities. I believe that the noble Lord is in a small minority in this Chamber. There are many charities and voluntary groups with a different outlook on this initiative. They are keen to apply for funds from the lottery. The Government cannot accept an amendment that would rule them out. Those charities which do not wish to receive money from the lottery will choose not to apply—indeed, they do not have to apply—just as some charities choose not to accept money from certain sources on other grounds; perhaps because the activities of a would-be donor do not seem compatible with the stated aims or principles of the group.
Many charities will wish to apply. In their interests we should not decide for them on what some of us may think is a good idea. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howell: I welcome the assurances that the noble Viscount has given following pressure from both sides of the Chamber continually to monitor the situation and provide information. I thank him for the assurance.
However, there was one omission in what he said. He did not include the Pool Promoters Association. He referred to the Horserace Betting Levy Board and other organisations. I hope that he will give similar information about the pools promoters. The real competition to the national lottery arises from the pools. In practice, we shall have two national lotteries running side by side. They must be equal in all respects. The pools promoters believe that the lottery will affect the pools. I do not share that view but it is important that we know the facts over a period of time so that if necessary we can return to the subject. Public information is vital. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will undertake to provide information to the Committee about the pools promoters' national lottery, and the effect of the national lottery upon the pools.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord asks a valid question. It might be better dealt with when we discuss the amendments which concern the pools and, for example, roll-over, later on today.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I have expressed my worries. Other people can read them; and other people can then say what they wish to say to the appropriate quarter.
However, I wish to express with regret my lack of confidence in the Government's judgement on such matters. They have made such colossal errors in the past 15 years on various important matters that one wonders whether their judgment is really sound.
Who asked for the national lottery? It. was not the charities. I believe that commercial pressures and a belief of a change in public opinion has led the Government to decide that they will further a lottery. They have then sought to put forward purposes that are given as the objects of the lottery in order to enlist the support of the public. I believe that there is humbug in the situation too. I am obliged to Members of the Committee, and to the Minister for his reply. Time will tell. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 61 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage on the Bill begin again at 7.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
7.7 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Sexual Offences Bill
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, that the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill
7.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill concerns the security of certain members of the armed forces, members of the Ulster Defence Regiment as part of the reserve and auxiliary forces, registered as civilian voters. The merger cif the UDR with the Royal Irish Rangers to form the Royal Irish Regiment resulted in the home service component of the new regiment becoming part of the regular Army.

1567
The Representation of the People Act 1983 confers on members of the regular forces a service qualification. Consequently, those who now enlist as full-time home service personnel may register only as service voters; it is illegal for them to register as civilian electors.
The position of part-time members of home service battalions is, on the other hand, arguable. Their liability for call-out could be considered in law to render them part of the reserve and auxiliary forces and, hence, exempt from the provisions for service voting. All personnel serving out their existing UDR engagements are not affected and can continue to register as civilians.
Under the electoral system in Northern Ireland, canvassers who are not security vetted distribute and collect registration forms from households. Home service personnel who had enlisted since the merger would have to tell these canvassers they were no longer eligible to be registered on the standard civilian forms. Our concern is that this, coupled with the appearance of their names on the completed register, could lead to their identification as home service personnel.
I do not wish to cast doubt—far from it—on the integrity of canvassers, who do a difficult job well. The element of risk may indeed be small, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is prudent to remove it, particularly since I would remind noble Lords that from 1970 to June 1993 no fewer than 202 Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (home service) personnel have been killed and 457 wounded or injured. After study, we have concluded that this is best done by amending the Representation of the People Act 1983.
A secondary consideration is that the service voter arrangements are meant to assist service personnel serving overseas. Home service personnel serve only in Northern Ireland—except for some limited periods for training.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the definition of who constitutes a member of the armed forces in Section 59(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. By excluding home service personnel from the definition, they will be able to continue to register as civilian voters. The reference to a member of the regular Army in the Bill means that both officers and soldiers are included. Also, the amendment extends to both full and part-time home service personnel, thus removing any doubt about the position in law of the part-timers of whom I spoke a moment ago.
As the annual registration round in Northern Ireland begins in August, we seek commencement on Royal Assent. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Howell: My Lords, first I thank the noble Viscount for the full explanation that he has given to us about the purpose and details of the Bill. Perhaps I may say on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House that it has a warm welcome and a fair wind.
I wish to take the opportunity of endorsing what the noble Viscount said about the great courage of our
1568
forces in Northern Ireland and to say how much we all owe them for the fact that so many have been murdered and seriously injured in the past 25 years. We know that they will continue, despite all provocation, to maintain those high standards.
There are two points to make arising from the sorry state of affairs which makes the Bill necessary. They are essential matters in the cause of democracy in our country. First, it is absolutely essential that soldiers who volunteer their lives on our behalf should at all times be protected by the electoral process. As I understand it, that is the main purpose of the Bill.
The second point is that it is absolutely vital that their right to vote is protected in a free society. Since the Bill seeks to achieve both those objectives, I have much pleasure in giving to it the support of these Benches.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm one point for me? I listened with care to his explanation. I hope that the changes which he proposes will not give rise to someone doing what I, as an accountant, might do; that is, to note that there is a change in the register. Will my noble friend confirm that the changes he proposes will not give any information, even by deduction, through comparing last year's or any previous registration roll with the current one? I believe that in the background notes that will have been taken care of, but perhaps my noble friend will confirm that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his welcome for the Bill. His party's enthusiastic support for it has been greatly appreciated by Her Majesty's Government in another place, and of course here. I am equally grateful to him for taking the opportunity to pay tribute to the performance of our troops in Northern Ireland, which is a rather less glamorous theatre than perhaps some of the other theatres to which our troops find themselves committed. The tribute is all the more welcome for that.
The noble Lord made two extremely pertinent and valuable points. Of course, he is right. Soldiers should be protected in the way in which he suggested, and that is the main purpose of the legislation. I also confirm to the noble Lord, as I am sure he knows full well, that all three services go to enormous lengths to point out to servicemen and women that it is their right to vote. Every effort is made to make sure that that right is made as easy as possible, considering the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to confirm that.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Lyell asked me an equally important and pertinent question arising, no doubt, from his considerable experience of Northern Ireland. I can confirm to him that there will be no change to information already available on the electoral roll as a result of the Bill. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that the status quo continues.
Once again, I thank noble Lords for their support for the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 1st July), Bill read a third time, and passed.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until seven fifty
five.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.18 to 7.55 p.m.]

National Lottery etc. Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 21 [The distributing bodies]:
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 9, line 32, after ("Britain") insert:
("( ) as to 15 per cent. for distribution by a sub-committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain, for expenditure on or connected with film,").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to ensure that the film industry is adequately funded and that the funds are distributed by a body with a knowledge of the industry which can concentrate on film and video issues and ensure a more efficient distribution of resources. It would be able to target projects and maintain a stricter control on spending, as well as providing a coherent national strategy for films.
At present the Arts Council remit on films is very narrow. It is mainly concerned with, and its funds are used for, avant-garde films and documentaries on artists. Looking to the future with the lottery, the Minister during the Report stage in another place said:
"Under clause 24, we will direct the Arts Council to take into account the need to fund film".—Official Report, Commons, 28/4/93; col. 1068.]
But he expected that only a single member of the Arts Council lottery committee would have had experience in the film industry. That is not good enough.
It is not hard, I agree, to make a case for special treatment for all the art forms. But it is true that nevertheless film is a special case and deserves to be given direct access to the lottery funds.
Why is film a special case? Each year over 90 per cent. of adults in the UK watch films at home or in the cinema, and that does not include the many children who get enormous pleasure from films and videos. It is the most popular and accessible art form of the late 20th century. Its popularity and breadth of appeal should be taken into account when funds for the national lottery are being considered.
Film and television are the principal means of articulating the culture of a country. In the United States the film industry is recognised as an important factor in the knock-on effect on the manufacturing and service industries and makes a positive impact on employment. Yet only 59 British films were shot last year and the industry is suffering from a serious slump in investment. In 1986, capital allowances for the industry were withdrawn; and during the fever of deregulation the Eady levy was dropped in 1985. That
1570
was a clever system which linked box office success to the future funding of home production. Alas, we do not have it any more.
Despite recent talks and protestations, the Government do not support the industry to the extent that other European governments and the United States Government do their industries. If the present state of affairs continues, the expertise and experience still existent in this country will be lost for ever.
The film industry is fundamentally different from other recipients of Arts Council money. It operates in a commercial environment quite different from the general ethos of the Arts Council. The Arts Council will naturally tend to follow its previous remit and specialise in areas where it has more relevant experience or where its funding has been cut. Funding for films, even if comprehensively addressed, will lag behind.
There will shortly be separate arts councils for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That may be suitable for other art forms but the film industry badly needs a national strategy, both for production and distribution. Lottery Funds could provide much-needed capital for new regional independent cinemas; it would be extremely constructive in that sphere. It would extend the range and quality of films being shown and allow more people access to British films. Other possible projects would be the updating and cataloguing of British film archives where films are stored and are sadly disintegrating. It could also support the Children's Film Foundation, which makes entertaining and educational films for children. That also badly needs much greater support. In the national lottery we have a great opportunity to resuscitate what was once a flourishing industry. I hope that it will not be thrown away. I ask the Minister to smile kindly on the amendment. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I rise briefly to support both amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Perhaps I may say how pleasing it is to see her in her place, speaking with her usual eloquence for a cause to which she has devoted so much energy over the years.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: In this country film has a particular place in the arts which the Government would be wise to recognise in some way in the Bill and in the distribution of the proceeds of the national lottery. I do not refer simply to the contribution film makes potentially to the economy and the balance of payments or to the arts as a whole. Given British pre-eminence in the cinema we would be wise to build on the work of some of our brilliant actors and actresses and our fine producers and directors who make Britain one of the centres of excellence in the sphere of the arts. I refer also to the contribution that film makes to young people's understanding of the arts. In saying that I do not mean simply as people who go to the cinema, but also as participants in film making.

1571
I have recently been involved, as trustee of the Citizenship Foundation, in a competition in which schools were invited to make films. The number of schools participating and the quality of films reveal a flourishing artistic involvement, probably as much as in the graphic arts and music. I hope that the Government will recognise, given our sad record as a nation with our indigenous film industry, that it is worth special consideration. Whether or not the exact wording of the amendments is correct I cannot say. But I hope that the noble Viscount, in responding, will be able in some way to concede the point.
Baroness Mallalieu: I too rise to support the noble Baroness and to express gratitude for the amendment which gives the Committee an opportunity of considering the position of the industry and the ways in which the Bill may afford some relief.
The importance of the industry, its particularly serious position today, and the desperate need for investment in it, are all clear. I hope that the Government will express their view on the importance and the future of the industry and some view of the essential need for further investment —perhaps, at any rate in part, from this lottery. It is clear that there is need for a national strategy in relation to the film industry.
It may be that the wording of the second amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Donoughue and Lady Birk is to be preferred. We look to the Government for a clear expression that the Bill will provide some means whereby funds can be devoted to the specific needs of the industry before it declines irreparably.
Baroness Wharton: I too support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. As the Committee is aware, the British industry has lost all its tax incentives and many other incentives over the years with the result that raising finance in this country is extremely difficult, given the considerable size of even a modest film budget.
As ours is a shrinking industry through lack of funds, the amendment would provide a helpful way of injecting British money into British films and ensuring that receipts remain firmly in this country. Perhaps the noble Viscount can confirm that the Government consider film and art as eligible for support from the fund.
Lord Birkett: I too support the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in her plea for the film industry. I have a raft of interests to declare. I have been a film maker for most of my working life. What is more, I am chairman of the Children's Film Foundation—the Children's Television and Film Foundation as it now is. That does not receive any funds from anybody. It lives more or less on the fat in its wool like a Herdwick sheep. Yet what it does is so important that it deserves funds from somewhere. It provides the first seed money—the most difficult money of all to raise—which is used to write the script, do the location recce and put the package together so that we can approach the financiers.
1572
Alas, we do not have enough money to finance films fully, but we can at least provide the seedcorn money that enables story films for children to get off the ground. I say "story films" because those are almost the only thing that nobody makes nowadays. People make serials, swap shops and every known form of programme but rarely tell ordinary stories for one-and-a-half hours like other films.
I would therefore love it if the lottery could provide funds for my children's film foundation and, indeed, for young people in all directions, and for the film industry which has been shamefully underfunded for as long as I have been working in it. Whether or not we can say, "And 15 per cent. to films please", I somehow doubt. I fancy that as soon as one put that in the Bill, all the other art forms would say, "And 15 per cent. for me". By the time they had finished, that would add up to 225 per cent.
I doubt that the specific amendment moved by the noble Baroness is tenable in the Bill. I hope, however, that the Government and those finally deputed to distribute the funds will remember the film industry. It is about the most deserving and underfunded cause I can think of.
Lord Dormand of Easington: As we know, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who has just spoken, is an expert on films and has devoted a great deal of his time to the making of them. We all appreciate what he has done. I mention that for two reasons. First, his contribution is extremely valuable to our debate. Secondly, in complete contrast, I am a film buff, a man in the street who, since being a child, has enjoyed seeing films. That gives rise to my interest in this specific debate and this amendment.
I strongly support the amendment for two basic reasons. First, this country has some of the world's best film makers. Secondly, as I am sure most Members of the Committee are aware, the film industry is in a disastrous condition. It is a terrible state of affairs that almost all of our best directors have had to go to America, to Hollywood in particular, to be involved in film making. I find it impossible to understand why financiers in this country are not prepared to invest in film production in Britain.
The situation has given rise to some unfortunate events, to put it mildly. I shall give some examples. When the old Associated British Picture Corporation studios were sold to Cannon, Cannon sold off the film archives to an American company. Those archives are the treasure of our nation's history. Members of the Committee will have seen many of them on television from time to time. Elstree Studios were sold off by Cannon with the result that their film archives are being transferred elsewhere. The British Film Institute, which plays a major role in the film industry in this country, wanted to buy those archives but it did not have sufficient money. As a result, precious millions of feet—literally millions of feet—of film may well be lost and with it a vital part of our heritage. Those archives were sold to a French company. If ever there was a case for public money to be used, that was it.

1573
Then there are our feature films—many of them, by any standards, among the best movies ever made. The allocation of lottery money to the British Film Institute to preserve and keep them in this country is essential if we are to put any value on them. They must surely be part of our most precious heritage. It is some time ago since attention was drawn to the fact that until the mid-1950s film was developed in cellulose nitrate stock. After some time it simply disintegrates. It can be transferred to cellulose acetate stock which does not degenerate, but it is a very costly process. The BFI's existing grant cannot be used—it is not permissible—for that purpose. An allocation of funds from the lottery would be a godsend. It would secure that stock permanently.
Many individuals and organisations interested in film production, including the British Screen Advisory Council, strongly believe that in the establishing of a body which could be called—I suggest this as a name which has been used on more than one occasio—a National Film Corporation. It could focus on film production and bring together the essential requirements for such work. Here again provision could be made by money from the national lottery. If that does not occur, it is difficult to see how such an important—indeed essential—body could get off the ground.
According to Screen Finance, which is published by the Financial Times. on 24th March this year there were just four films involving British production companies envisaged for the first three months of this year. Things could hardly be worse than that. I am sure that Members of the Committee remember the golden era of British film production when literally hundreds of films were produced in this country every year. It is particularly disappointing in that cinema admissions are now increasing. The low of 53 million admissions in 1984 to the 100 million in 1992 must surely give rise to some optimism. If the entrepreneurs wit h some help from the Government—perhaps in the form of taxation policy and lottery money—cannot take advantage of the prospect, we are indeed in a sorry state.
I am aware of the Government's philosophy of standing on your own two feet but there are some features of our national character, history and culture which should legitimately be helped by the state—by the state I mean by society as a whole. Do the Government not accept that what is happening in Australia and France in particular, although other countries are taking the same kind of action, with film making is a perfect example of the view that I have just expressed? Perhaps the Minister will comment on this when he replies.
I conclude by asking the fundamental question in this matter. Do the Government think that films are part of our heritage, our culture, our way of life and that in the films we can make and have made in this country is an essentially British aspect? Our history and record of film making gives a resounding yes to that question. The national lottery funds provide a timely opportunity not only to save but to develop talent which is second to none. I hope that the Government will grasp it with both hands. The important point of this amendment is that there
1574
should be a sub-committee with special responsibility for film. If present proposals are maintained, there will be little doubt that the industry will continue to be treated as the poor relation. It is a sorry position to many of us that the so-called "high" arts enjoy a privileged position. The time has arrived for that to be changed. I hope that the Government will now recognise the very strong case being made for film inside the House, inside another place and indeed outside Parliament.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I can assure the Committee that the Government are well aware of the importance of the film industry, which receives our support in a number of ways. For example, the Government provide £5 million of public money for film production and put some £15 million into the British Film Institute for its excellent work. An important new recent development is the series of seminars which the Secretary of State has initiated with those involved in the film industry to work out answers to some of the difficult challenges which face the film world.
In the Bill we have chosen to use one body—the Arts Council—to distribute lottery money for the arts. We are quite clear that the arts include film and, for example, crafts. We decided that it would not be practicable to use specific film bodies for distribution in this area simply because if we did so for film in the arts sector there would he no reason why we should not multiply the number of distribution bodies in other sectors, too. We deliberately chose the National Heritage Memorial Fund as a distributor rather than several bodies dealing with the different aspects of our heritage, such as the countryside or important historical buildings. If we did so, we could open the flood gates to claims for specific areas to have their own body. That would lead to an increased bureaucracy, each with its own penny packet of lottery funds to dole out. The distributors would not be able to take a strategic view. That is not what the Bill is about. An important principle of the Bill is that the distributing bodies do not receive lottery funds themselves for their own use.
What we are proposing is that through Clause 24 we shall direct the Arts Council to take into account the need to fund film applications. We will also generally direct the Arts Council and other distribution bodies that where they do not have specific expertise in a particular area they should take account of the need to seek it from a relevant expert body unless of course that expert body is the one applying for funding. In considering applications for lottery funding, the Arts Council is proposing to use a special lottery committee which will have on it at least one member with expertise on film. I understand that the committee might be supported by a special advisory committee dealing purely with film applications. It will call on the advice of other expert bodies such as the British Film Institute to help it make its decisions. We are convinced that this offers a very flexible framework within which film stands to benefit a great deal from lottery proceeds.

1575
I fully accept the spirit behind Amendments Nos. 63 and 71 to Clause 23 but I should like to assure your Lordships that they are unnecessary. It is clear from the wording of the Arts Council charter that the council can fund film. In its annual report on how it has distributed the lottery proceeds the Arts Council has to publish the directions and demonstrate achievement against those directions. If film is not being given a fair crack of the whip, it will be quite clear. On a practical level it is now up to the Arts Council and the interested bodies to work together to find the best way to distribute the film element.
I hope that I have made it clear to the Committee that we understand the problems of the film industry. I have described the distribution mechanism that will deliver to film a fair share of the lottery proceeds. I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Birk: I thank all those—colleagues and others—who have supported the amendment. All of them in different ways have some expertise in the film industry. I was not quite as happy about the Minister's reply, which I found very disappointing. I spent several years as a governor of the British Film Institute. There is no doubt that every which way was used in order to economise and in order to make the small amount of money go to the best use.
With the ending of the Eady levy and the change in taxation, it was quite impossible for the film industry, without more positive help, to get anywhere. Although I would not stick completely to the figure of 15 per cent., I believe that films are in a different category from, say, music, the arts and the theatre with which the Arts Council is used to dealing.
In order to get films back to nearly where they once were it is important that they should have, if you like, some positive discrimination with a lead which will enable the industry to return not only to where it was, but to Improve. We lose such a great deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and others pointed out, it is not only a question of economics but also of culture and art. The industry is very important for the country.
The more we lag behind, the less possible becomes success. There is a great deal to get through at this time of night. I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to return with it or something different at Report stage. In the interim I hope that the Minister will think about it and perhaps discuss the matter with his colleagues in order to see whether there is some way in which films can be given more positive help—even though I know that the Minister was doing his best—than he was able to offer me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 64, I should inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 65.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 65:
1576
Page 10, line I I, after ("millennium") insert (", which shall be allocated in equal part to projects connected with the arts, sport, the national heritage and charitable purposes,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the Millennium Fund is spent equally on the arts or heritage charities otherwise there is a danger that too great a proportion of lottery funds will be spent on large, high prestige projects and the funding will not reach charities or other local community initiatives.
During Report stage in another place Mr. Key (who was then the Minister) made a statement which he had already made at Committee stage. He said that the Millennium Fund would be spent on a few large-scale projects and a large number of smaller community projects. That might seem like ample reassurance as to the way in which the Millennium Commission resources will be spent. However, he also suggested that that commission would be a slim, fit body and not over-burdened with bureaucracy.
In my view those statements are incompatible. How is the Millennium Commission to make good funding decisions across the range of community activity if it is to have very few staff? I have heard it said that civil servants are suggesting that the commission could be serviced by only four staff.
Amendment No. 65 and Amendment No. 66 which is grouped with it, would resolve that apparent contradiction. They provide that the fund be spent in equal measure on the arts, sport, heritage and charities. I suggest that that should be acceptable to my noble friend since the range of projects which the manifesto suggested might be funded by the Millennium Commission falls into each of those categories. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Although we on these Benches agree with Amendment No. 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in particular I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 66 which is grouped with it. If I heard the noble Viscount correctly earlier in the debate when we were discussing the Millennium Fund, the proposal in Amendment No. 66 is acceptable to the Government because it simply provides that the,
"Commission shall consult with the relevant body or bodies specified in section 21".
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to confirm what I believe he said earlier—that it was the intention that the Millennium Commission should only operate in close consultation with each of the four sectors, in which case I imagine that this amendment is acceptable to him.
Lord Annan: I hope that we do not accept Amendment No. 65. It will simply torpedo the whole purpose of the Millennium Fund.
Viscount Astor: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has put the case very succinctly about Amendment No. 65. As I said earlier, we intend the Millennium Commission to be able to exercise vision in the task it will be given. We are not yet in a position to say precisely in which fields the best projects will be proposed. That is why the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 65, proposed by my noble friend

1577
Lord Swinfen. It is no doubt likely that several possible millennium projects will be in the areas which will also benefit from their own allocation in the Bill. But I do not think that we should limit the commission to these areas.
To do so would possibly rule out forever other valuable and far-sighted projects, which I am sure the Committee would feel should not be missed out. For example, there may be applications to the commission for a new environmental, scientific or design projects, as well as for artistic, sporting or heritage projects. In short, I am fearful that this amendment would allow the commission to commemorate, but would stifle its ability to innovate.
It is clear that the Millennium Commission, like all of the other distributors, will have as its underlying brief the improvement of the quality of life. I suggest that we can trust to the good judgment of the commissioners to judge the best projects from any field. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 66 which requires the commission to consult, the scope of the Millennium Commission will be very wide, and consultation on particular projects will go far wider than the four distributors listed in Clause 21 of the Bill. That is not to say that we do not expect those bodies to be consulted—they will be, as will many other bodies. The directions which the Secretary of State is minded to make under Clause 24 will specify that expert bodies should be consulted as appropriate on applications. This is intended to apply to the Millennium Commission as to the other distributive bodies. It would he a mistake to describe—
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I want to be clear about this. Although the Millennium Commission may consult with other expert bodies, the noble Viscount is saying that they will be instructed to consult with the bodies nominated in the four specific areas and that that will happen. Did I hear that correctly?
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may repeat. I said that the particular projects would go far wider than the four distributors listed in Clause 21 of the Bill. That is not to say that we do not expect those bodies to be consulted. They will be consulted; but the point is that so will other bodies. It will not be limited to those four bodies and the directions—
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: This is the nub of the matter. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for again giving way. When the Government say that they expect them to be consulted, that is rather loose language. He then made it more specific by saying quite emphatically that the bodies will be consulted. Is that the version on which we should rest our understanding?
Viscount Astor: What I said was that the directions which the Secretary of State is minded to make under Clause 24 will specify that expert bodies should be
1578
consulted, as appropriate, on the application including the four distributor bodies. I hope that that explains that point to the noble Lord, Lord Holrne.
Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 66. believe that it would be mistake to describe in the Bill some bodies and not others as those who are to be consulted. That is why it is better that the Secretary of State should be allowed to do that by order under Clause 24. Therefore, with that reassurance that the commission will be asked to consult with appropriate expert bodies, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Viscount sits down, did I understand him to say that the commission will be able to consult because the Secretary of State said that it would? Will the Secretary of State specify the bodies that the commission will be allowed to consult or can it consult whoever it wishes plus the people that the Secretary of State says that it shall consult?
Viscount Astor: The noble Baroness is quite right. I said that the Secretary of State will say that the commission shall consult with those bodies, but we do not want to limit the number of bodies with which it can consult because it could consult a great many other expert bodies also.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether my noble friend can comment on the number of staff at the commission? He said that the commission will be innovative and that it "shall consult". If the rumour that the commission will have only four staff is correct, I must advise him that they will not have the time to do all the digging around that will be necessary if they are to be innovative and they certainly will not have the time to consult properly.
Viscount Astor: What my noble friend has said about four staff is total speculation. It is obvious that the Millennium Commission will have to have an adequate number of staff to be able to carry out its duties and to deal with applications. I said earlier that we expect that number to be small because the staff will not be involved with the very large number of projects that some of the other distributing bodies will be handling.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for that information. I shall read the earlier part of his answer to my amendment but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Payments from Distribution Fund to distributing bodies]:
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 67:
Leave out Clause 22 and insert the following new clause:
("Payments out of the Distribution Fund
22. The Secretary of State shall, each quarter, make payments out of so much of any money in the Distribution

1579
Fund as is held for distribution by a body specified in section 21 of the amounts needed by that body to meet its current distribution requirements.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 67, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 73 which is grouped with it. The power of the Secretary of State provided for in Clause 22 is one of a number of powers, the extent of which gives rise to a concern often expressed in this Committee. The passage of this legislation through the other place revealed that that power is of greater extent than my noble friend and his colleagues have any intention of using. It would therefore seem reasonable for us to seek to clarify that power and to make sure that the clause expresses more precisely what power it is that the Secretary of State is to have.
No one has any doubt that my noble friend and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State would use the power given to them by this clause in anything other than a wise and appropriate way. But it is not good in principle for Parliament, and in particular for this House, to extend the powers of government unnecessarily. We must not forget that we are granting powers to all future Secretaries of State.
As I understand the position, the Government intend that the distributing bodies will apply for money to be made over to them from the distribution fund. The then Minister, Mr. Key, speaking in Committee in the other place, made that clear in his reply to a debate there, saying:
"The reference to 'such terms' and 'payments of such amounts' as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate will ensure that the distributing bodies can draw down funds as and when they need them".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 23/2/93; cols. 263–4.]
So why does the clause not say that? Even more, why does it say almost precisely the opposite?
In his reply in the other place, the then Minister also referred to "the agreed financial arrangements". I should be grateful to my noble friend if he would spell out, for the benefit of the Committee, what those arrangements are and between whom they are agreed. These matters may be clear to experts in the field but I, for one, am not an expert.
I know that an attempt was made in the other place to remove the power to control the distribution fund from the Secretary of State, and I can appreciate why the Government resisted such a move. Every care must be taken to secure the proper stewardship of lottery proceeds and that the proceeds are wisely invested on behalf of the distributing bodies.
The amendment standing in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, would not interfere with the principles of control and stewardship in any way. It seeks to set out the Government's intentions as expressed in Committee in the other place. The specification of quarterly payments is included because it seems reasonable to set out a basis for payment in order to assist the distributing bodies in making their awards, and I understand that the quarterly payment of grants is a commonly adopted practice. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I was glad to add my name to this amendment, and should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said. I shall confine my remarks to Amendment No. 67. I comment on Amendment No. 73 only to say that its spelling seems a bit shaky.
The clause is expressed in such wide terms that, as I read it, there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State from holding up payments from the distribution fund to a particular beneficiary if he disagrees with that beneficiary's allocation policies, perhaps on the grounds of politics and perhaps—if I dare mention the word again—on grounds of additionality. I, too, had noticed that the clause seems to provide exactly the opposite of what Mr. Key said that it would provide in Standing Committee in the other place. I naturally go along with the understanding that the present Government have no sinister intentions of using this clause in the way that one fears, but anything that they say is not binding for all time on future Governments. It is much more satisfactory to have the position clearly spelt out in the Bill, as this amendment tries to do.
There is one other rather puzzling feature about all this. In the other place the then Minister said that the broad power given to the Secretary of State in this clause was dictated by Treasury rules and that those rules applied because the lottery money was raised from the public. In the light of some pressure there, he undertook to discuss further with the Treasury the management of the resources in the distribution fund. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to let us know the outcome of those discussions with the Treasury.
What are the Treasury rules which apply to the management of the money in the distribution fund? As a former member of Her Majesty's Treasury, I suppose that I ought to know, but I certainly do not. It is not public expenditure in any ordinary sense of that term. It is money raised from the public for specific purposes, so no question of hypothecation comes into the picture. It is not government revenue raised from taxation, to which ordinary rules apply. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to explain in a bit more detail what this is all about.
The net effect of the clause as presently drafted is to leave the recipients of the money in a state of uncertainty. I think that everyone would agree that that is most undesirable if they are to be able to plan sensibly how to distribute the money once they have received it.
To sum up, could the Minister clarify what the rules are; why they have to apply to lottery proceeds; and the reasons, if any, for not accepting this admirably drafted amendment?
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may follow up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. It is the question of this money being public money. When money is subscribed voluntarily, as it is in a lottery, it is not tax money. Any charity which raises money is raising it from the public. In what way is money raised from the public for a lottery different from any money raised for a lottery, or, indeed, a jumble sale, if it comes to that, for a

1581
charitable purpose? I hope that it would never occur to the Treasury that it had any control over those moneys. Why should it have control over the lottery money? What is the difference?
Viscount Astor: New clause 22 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State will make quarterly payments to the distributive bodies to enable them to meet their needs. It is entirely accepted by the Government that the distributive bodies should be able to draw down the funds being held and invested on their behalf as and when they need them. That will of course need to be done regularly and may even be more frequent than every quarter. I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will establish the most practical arrangements designed to meet the needs of the bodies. Those are not, however, an appropriate matter to be set in primary legislation.
Amendment No. 73 aims to ensure that distributive bodies may enter into a forward grant commitment to a beneficiary of up to five years and that revenue grants can be paid.
I can confirm the Government's intentions in this matter. The Government are prepared to allow considerable freedom in the application of national lottery funds. Such funds, unlike public expenditure, will not be subject to rules on annuality. That will allow them to accumulate, if that is desirable, and also allow flexibility over the year end. The funds will also be invested, with the interest on investments being returned as appropriate to the account for each distributive body. It will be for the distributive bodies to assess the forward commitments that they should make to grant recipients. It will therefore be possible for a distributive body to commit a five-year grant after considering the effect upon their national lottery funds and the needs of other potential applicants. It will be for the distributors themselves, within the appropriate accounting rules, to manage their funds to achieve the best use.
The national lottery distribution fund is under the stewardship of the Secretary of State on behalf of the distributive bodies. The Secretary of State must account for the fund to Parliament. The rules for drawing down funds may be complex and will need to be set out with precision. They should not be set out in statute. The main Treasury requirements are likely to be that the funds should not be drawn down by the bodies before they are needed. That would be wasteful because the bodies themselves do not have powers to invest the money. It will be invested for them by the National Debt Commission. I hope that that clarifies the point.
Baroness Seear: The Minister hopes that it does, but I do not know that his hopes are entirely justified. I cannot see where the Treasury comes into this. The Secretary of State in this case is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is the Secretary of State for National Heritage, is it not? The money raised from the public is not tax money. What does it have to do with the Treasury?
Viscount Astor: The point is that the funds can be drawn down when they are needed. The funds are held
1582
and invested as a pool. The distributive bodies have no powers to invest money, so they should receive the money only when they need it. It is merely proper practice that requires that. I made it clear that the funds will not be part of government expenditure. The categorisation of money is a matter determined b:y the Central Statistical Office against a number of established criteria. While not categorised as expenditure within the controlled total, the national lottery expenditure is general government expenditure spent in the public sector. That is the important difference.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: The Minister has not explained the need for the provision contained in the clause that we are seeking to replace which provides:
"At such times as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, payments of such amounts as he thinks appropriate may be made to a body specified in section 21".
There is nothing about Treasury rules or anything of that kind. The payment is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. If he chooses not to give money because he does not like the gifts proposed, there is nothing to stop him in the clause as drafted.
Viscount Astor: The purpose of the clause is to ensure that the money can be held and invested on behalf of the distributive bodies and then handed to them as it is needed. That, as I said earlier, might need to be done regularly. It might need to be done more frequently than every quarter. That is the point that I was making.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: If the clause said that we should all be happy, but it does not say that.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: The clause grants the Secretary of State the power to do that. I said that the practical arrangements designed to meet the needs of those bodies will need to be complex. They are not appropriate to be set out in primary legislation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I should like to take a step further what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. We are talking about what could eventually be enormous sums of money. Our recent experience —I do not wish to be accused of being political—is that other huge sums of money being held in reserve are riot being made available to the people who own them to use for the purposes for which the money was raised. Let us suppose that an enormous sum of money started to accumulate and was held in reserve. Has the Secretary of State the power—if this Government or a future government were in a serious financial position—to put a financial moratorium on those funds?
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord has missed the point. Someone has to be responsible to Parliament for the fund. That person has to be the Secretary of State. I have explained the different criteria relating to the money. The money is not categorised as expenditure within the controlled total so it cannot be moved from where it is to somewhere else and spent on something different. Someone has to account for the money. The money is categorised by the Central Statistical Office as general government expenditure

1583
expended for the public use. If the noble Lord considers that point, he will see that the Secretary of State has no power to spend money except by passing it on to the distributive bodies under the Bill.
Lord Lucas: Could my noble friend enlighten me on another related point? Is it decided what rate of taxation will be payable on the interest earned on the sums on deposit?
Viscount Astor: My noble friend raises an intriguing point for which I do not instantly have an answer. I believe the answer is—if I am wrong I shall write to Members of the Committee and correct it—that the tax the Treasury collects on the national lottery is a tax on turnover. It is not a tax on the distributed funds. That is the difference. Having thought about it a little further, I can tell the Committee that no tax is payable on the interest.
Lord Swinfen: I am interested in what my noble friend has just said. My memory takes me back a not inordinately long time—indeed, shortly before dinner —to when he told the Committee that there was no tax payable on the funds raised for the national lottery. I asked him whether charitable organisations might be able to claim back the tax paid on funds distributed to them. He told me that a levy was raised on the funds by, not the Inland Revenue, but HM Customs and Excise. My noble friend may be in some difficulty in producing an answer this evening and I shall not press him for one.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I made it clear that the tax is levied by Customs and Excise. That is a tax in the general sense and my noble friend must not try to split hairs with me.
Lord Swinfen: I am trying to ensure that charities can receive a little extra money, which I am sure they would like.
I am not entirely satisfied with my noble friend's answer to the issues raised on the amendment. However, I shall not press him further tonight. I shall read what was said by him and by other Members of the Committee and may well return to the matter at a later stage. I appreciate that it may be limiting to make payments only on a quarterly basis but we need to ensure that when payments are necessary the Secretary of State is not in a position to withhold them for some reason which none of us can think of at the moment. I shall not speculate because that would be unwise. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Application of money by distributing bodies]:
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 71 not moved.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 10, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (1) of this section, "expenditure of the relevant description" shall include expenditure for the purposes of revenue assistance, where appropriate, as well as on capital projects.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 72 deals with the important question of whether the funds as regards sport can properly be spent for revenue purposes or whether they will be earmarked mainly for capital projects.
We are concerned about the matter because in Standing Committee A in another place the then Minister, Mr. Robert Key, said:
"The national lottery proceeds will mostly be devoted to capital projects".
Later in this speech he stated:
"The presumption in favour of capital projects will not apply to charities. Projects for capital or revenue grants will be eligible to apply".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 23/2/93; col. 277.]
On another occasion Mr. Peter Brooke, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, made a similar comment. That has caused great anxiety to some of us, especially to those involved in sports and other bodies. These days sport does not need many capital projects. The great priority is for revenue projects. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will correct me if I am wrong in saying that the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which is doing good work of a unique character, spends most of its money on capital projects. Therefore, there is an imbalance that I hope the lottery will correct.
Forty years ago some of us in and out of ministerial office were urging all kinds of bodies to build facilities such as golf clubs, tennis clubs, sports clubs and so on. Many of them did so. Since most of those sports facilities do not make a profit and cannot run at a profit the problem today is to refurbish the facilities which are now crumbling. I shall not bore Members of the Committee by giving a long list of such projects, but I could do so. For example, I am a director of Wembley Stadium, which I declare. After taking over the stadium the present board has had to spend £75 million in order to modernise it and make our national stadium comparable with those in other countries. I am not making any claim on the funds of the national lottery for that purpose, and I do not think that we have any intention of so doing but that illustrates the point that within three or four generations facilities will need a great deal of money spent on them in order to keep them up-to-date, not least from the point of view of health and safety.
I am thinking in particular of small tennis clubs, swimming clubs, soccer clubs, rugby clubs, athletics clubs and the like which have their own facilities as a result of great effort and sacrifice by their members. Since we have a national lottery they might reasonably expect to make a claim on it for any money they spend on keeping those facilities up-to-date. The need for the refurbishment of sports facilities is forever with us. Therefore, I urge on the Committee for consideration the revenue aspect of capital projects.
I turn to the money needed by sports bodies. I could read out to the Committee a whole catalogue of 64 or more sports and their governing bodies in this country and make a case for each one, but I shall confine myself to the British Olympic Association. I believe that its purpose is supported by every Member of the Committee. It has to raise large sums of money to take teams for both the winter and summer games in each

1585
cycle of four years. Like other sporting bodies, the British Olympic Association has to pay a great deal of money in corporation tax and it does not like that. I can understand the difficulties of the Treasury at a time like this in saying there shall not be any alleviation of corporation tax for sports bodies. However, I hope that in better times we can alleviate the situation. Between 1989 and 1992 the British Olympic Association paid £1.47 million in corporation tax. Every penny of that had to be raised or donated by the public. People hardly take kindly to the fact that while they voluntarily give money for our wonderful Olympic athletes the Government are taking a large slice of that money.
The British Olympic Association states that sport is dealing with human resources, and I believe that that applies also to the arts. It must train our British teams to a high standard of perfection and take them overseas, sometimes, indeed, to distant parts, in order that they can compete adequately. For example, it has been calculated that this year our top rowers will have to pay £3,000 each in order to travel and compete in international regattas. The same story applies to most of the other elite British athletes. Governing bodies are seriously underfunded and not able to finance properly their international teams. That is verging on a disgrace for this country. One hopes that the advent of the national lottery will help to redress that situation.
The way in which Britain suffers compared with other countries can be well illustrated by the fact that French athletes are reimbursed for loss of earnings from a fund of £5 million per annum, whereas the United Kingdom Sports Council grant to the National Coaching Foundation, which is so important in that respect, is £1,420,000 per annum. Another illustration of the same point is that Germany spends £8 million per year on coaches and coach education, which is another important revenue consideration.
Therefore, I trust that the Committee will see the need to ensure that revenue and capital considerations receive an equal share of the proceeds. I hope that when the Minister responds to the amendment he will give us a satisfactory assurance which will enable us to proceed with the Bill. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I have no intention of preventing any Member of the Committee from speaking on the amendment, but it may help if I answer some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I may be able to give some assurances which the Committee will find useful.
The Government have no intention of ruling out revenue grants. Experience will suggest what is good practice in this area, as in others. It is clear that the charities sector will need to be able to make revenue grants. We are also clear that other distributors may need to make provision for revenue expenditure or endowment grants in certain exceptional circumstances. For example, if the maintenance cost of a new building funded from the national lottery cannot be raised from elsewhere, and that building is seen as a
1586
high priority project, a revenue grant or endowment might be made to support the project for a number of years.
We feel that there should be a presumption in favour of capital; but of course refurbishment projects are very often capital projects. None of the fine details of what the Sports Council will fund has been ruled out, nor has it been ruled in. It would not be proper to prejudge the outcome of the task which the Sports Council will have in working out guidelines on how the money is to be spent. I hope that I have shown that there is considerable flexibility. We have no intention of ruling out revenue grants. I hope that the Committee will be satisfied with that assurance, and that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord St. John of Bletso: I had intended to add a few remarks to what the noble Lord, Lord Howell. said on the work of the BOA. As the Committee may be aware, the BOA is self-funding. Will the Minister give the Committee an assurance that distributions will be made to the BOA as laid out in Clause 20(3) (b)?
Viscount Astor: We are working on the guidelines. I should not rule out any sporting organisation receiving lottery funds. In all our debates If have made it clear that it will be for the distributor bodies to distribute the funds as they see fit.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The noble Viscount's intervention has allowed me to be even briefer than I would have been; and I thank him for that. The reason that my name is to the amendment is straightforward. My amendment seeks to ensure not that the Government, through the lottery, should want to show flexibility, but that they will show flexibility. As any businessman will tell them, inevitably every capital project has revenue costs attached to it. Therefore, in making a capital grant or a capital investment of any kind, it is almost inconceivable that that will not attract to it revenue implications. It is not just desirable that the Government should be flexible, but to make capital investment successful it will be essential that allowances are made for the revenue implications.
Baroness Mallalieu: The noble Viscount's intervention has made it unnecessary for me to speak at any length. Although I note that the noble Viscount seems to favour the balance being tipped in favour of capital expenditure as opposed to revenue, it is welcome to hear that he does not rule out revenue expenditure. I hope that in adding that caveat, he does not rule out the possibility that there will be occasions when the need for balance demands that greater revenue expenditure will be required in some areas. There is clearly no point in building magnificent new capital projects and then having insufficient lands either to staff or maintain them. I am glad that the Government appreciate that and appear to have slightly changed their stance.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the Foundation for Sport and the

1587
Arts—and he was very kind to do so. As the Committee may be aware, I am deputy chairman of the trustees.
The noble Lord suggested, correctly, that the foundation is inclined more towards capital projects than revenue projects. However, our problem is that we do not have the same definition of revenue projects that the noble Lord suggests we have. We do not like spending money on core revenue funding—that is, the payment of salaries and so on, because we cannot be certain that in future we can maintain that at the same level.
What we are keen on—and what an enormous number of applications which we approve comprise—is the type of repair and refurbishment to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred; for example, the resurfacing of tennis courts, all-weather surfacing of running tracks, and so on. I consider that to be capital expenditure because it is expenditure on works. The noble Lord regards it as revenue. However, we take the attitude that it is capital, although it achieves the result which the noble Lord seeks because it brings those facilities up to date and ensures their continuation.
The British Olympic Association was mentioned. The foundation gives money to that association. At present I am considering bids for the next winter Olympics in 1994. Indeed, we made a recent decision to give to the Sports Aid Foundation. Therefore, we are not as inflexible as the noble Lord may have suggested. For example, the trustees have decided to give £1.3 million towards the Sports Aid Foundation for the training and expenses of our top athletes so that they may take part in the forthcoming Olympic Games. I believe that it is merely a question of definition between revenue and capital. I hope that that point can be clarified. I was delighted to hear my noble friend the Minister say that the Sports Council, through the lotteries, will be adopting much the same attitude as we have.
Lord Howell: We have had a most useful debate. I am grateful to all who have taken part. I am especially grateful for what the Minister said. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I agree that it would be helpful if we could clarify the definitions. As I was responsible for the noble Lord becoming involved in the discussion, I should point out that it has recently come to my notice—and I shall be writing to him on the matter—that there is a difficulty about definitions regarding exactly what sport is. I am astonished to find that the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has told the Croquet Association that it cannot have any money to establish a centre of excellence for croquet (available for a short time only on land donated by Cadbury in Birmingham) because someone has said that the betting Acts, which provide the money for the foundation, do not allow it to be used for non-athletic purposes.
If Members of the Committee have been watching Independent Television recently and have seen the bogus detective walking around—I forget in whose interests he is doing so —they will have noted that at
1588
one point he picks up a croquet hammer, bashes a ball very hard and knocks out his fellow detective. That seems to suggest that it is very much an athletic pursuit.
Wimbledon is the home of lawn tennis and croquet. It would be quite ludicrous if grant could be awarded for tennis activities but not for croquet activities. I hope that the Minister or the foundation will, at some point, try to clear up the matter so that the level playing field applies to croquet as well as to other sports. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am most grateful. I shall be brief. The foundation is at present limited to the definition of "athletic sports". However, we are re-negotiating our trust deed which will—it is to be hoped—allow us to contribute also to non-athletic sports. As I said, we are in the process of re-negotiating the trust deed.
Lord Howell: I am very glad to hear that. However, I am bound to say that if the Treasury wants to decide what is or what is not athletic sport, then the trustees of the foundation of which the noble Lord is deputy chairman should have told it to go and jump in the canal. It is not for the Treasury to decide what is or what is not an athletic sport, or to make a distinction between croquet and other sports. However, I shall come to the aid of the noble Lord. I hope that the matter that has been dragging on will be settled very quickly. Indeed, if he wishes to table any further Questions to prompt the Government, I shall be happy to join his campaign.
As I said, I am grateful to all those speakers who have taken part in the debate. I am especially grateful that the Minister has made it clear that, so far as concerns revenue expenditure, there will be no constraints. That rectifies the imbalance created by earlier statements. In those circumstances, while assuring Members of the Committee that we shall keep the matter under review when the Minister produces his guidelines, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Control of distributing bodies by the Secretary of State]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 10, line 36, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Viscount said: The purpose behind Clause 24(2) is a desire to ensure that the distributing bodies do not act in a way which might give rise to conflicts of interest. That is in line with our stated intention that distributors should never be beneficiaries. A conflict of interest would arise if a distributor made grants to a body which it owned or wholly sponsored, or whose members were all appointed by the distributor, or, indeed, whose membership was the same as that of the distributor.
It would be quite wrong for there to be any question of bodies in the future, when circumstances may be different from now, being put in a position

1589
where they might be accused of feathering their own nests with lottery money. It is important to note that the power is only exercisable by order. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that it is crucial that the Secretary of State should have some power to prevent that happening.
We took account of concerns expressed in this Chamber on Second Reading and in another place that the power, as drafted in the Bill, might be used in a much wider way and that our intentions for its use were not perhaps as clear as they might be. For this reason, we have tabled a new government amendment which sets out very clearly the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may prescribe a body or class of bodies which may not receive money.
This might happen if the distributor were a member of the proposed beneficiary, or if it appears to the Secretary of State that the distributor is in some other way able to influence the proposed beneficiary. This might be the case, for example, if a distributing body had representatives on the board of trustees of a charitable trust, and would be able to influence it in that way. Another example might be where members of the distributing body were closely associated with an applicant for funding. In these cases, or others in which a person might reasonably assume that there was a degree of influence over the benefiting body, the Secretary of State should be able to take a view on whether this might give rise to a conflict of interest, and take action to avoid this. I believe my amendment addresses the anxieties raised by this Chamber at Second Reading. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Gibson: I am grateful to the Government for taking over the amendment which I originally tabled. I regard their Amendment No. 78C as much better than the subsection which Amendment No. 76 seeks to delete. It is better because it focuses much more narrowly on the need, which the Minister assures me exists, to arm the Secretary of State with the power to prevent the distributing bodies from giving money to themselves or to bodies under their control. The subsection at present in the Bill would give him much wider ranging powers of prohibition and—if the Committee agrees —I shall be glad to see it go.
However, I am not wholly happy with Clause 24 even with the proposed amendments in this grouping, although I think all of them would improve the clause. I say this because I originally tabled Amendment No. 76 in order to obtain a debate on the extent to which the Secretary of State needs the powers which it is proposed to give him in the Bill. I feel that the way in which the Arts Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund were first set up, and their powers defined, is preferable to the method by which Clause 24, even as amended, will control them.
Apparently, as the Minister explained to me most courteously before we began the Committee stage, as the distribution of the proceeds of the lottery does not constitute government expenditure, the Secretary of State will have no control of it unless the Bill specifically arms him with such powers. Clause 24 is supposed to do just that. I must say that after three
1590
weeks' reflection, I still feel that the whole of Clause 24 gives him rather more control than he ought to have. The question in my mind is: why should he have powers over the distributing bodies in respect of their lottery money which he does not have in respect of their statutory grants? In spite of the point about lottery money not being government expenditure, I still do not quite understand the answer.
I have looked up the two Royal Charters which incorporated the Arts Council. They made no mention of any special powers for the Secretary of State. All they said was,
"All moneys and property, however received by the Council"—
the Committee should note that is not necessarily government expenditure because the Arts Council can, and I believe has, received moneys which do not come from the Government—
"including any money voted by Parliament, must be applied solely towards the promotion of the Council's objects and no portion of it, except as otherwise provided by the Charter may be paid directly or indirectly to Council members".
In the case of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the same principle is secured under the National Heritage Act 1980 under which the eligibility of recipients of grants simply has to be consistent with the objectives laid down for the fund. In other words, the Act achieves its objectives not negatively by giving the Secretary of State powers to intervene, but positively by saying in effect that anything is excluded which is outside the scope of the fund as laid down by parliament.
I shall be glad if the Committee agrees that subsection (2) is to go. However, I find the whole of this clause less than satisfactory. Subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 24 allow the Secretary of State to tell the distributing bodies what to take into account in making grants. Why is it necessary to breach their independence in this way? The Royal Charters, or, in the case of the heritage fund, its Act of Parliament, state what those bodies can do. Surely that is enough when it is a case of dealing with lottery money, as is the case when dealing with government expenditure, particularly as, in the case of the Arts Council., its charter deals with money that does not emanate from the Government, as I have already said.
I hope the Minister can tell us what are the reasons for giving the Secretary of State powers over the distributing bodies which he does not have, and does not need to have, in respect of their existing grants, or in respect of other moneys received by them which are not government expenditure. Further., why cannot the reasonable objective of preventing unsuitable recipients from receiving grants be achieved by stating who or what is eligible—that is how it is done now—and then allowing the distributing bodies to act with their present freedom? I hope that the Minister can explain the matter. If I remain unconvinced, I can always return to the issue at a later stage.
Baroness Mallalieu: The anxieties which have just been expressed about Clause 24, even after the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, are shared by those of us on this side of the Chamber.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation of the Government's intentions., but I still

1591
query why it is that a Bill which is supposed to create an independent source of funds for sport, the arts and for the heritage should be so closely controlled by government in this way. It could be argued that if these were taxpayers' funds which were to be disbursed, the Government should exercise hands-on control. However, in this case the National Heritage Memorial Fund will be working closely with the department. With very few exceptions—I believe that I am right in thinking there will be only one—its members will have been appointed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. That being so, since the Government are in essence choosing who will serve on that body, one would have thought that those chosen would be people who would be trusted by Her Majesty's Government to distribute the funds to suitable bodies.
The proposed amendment in the name of the noble Viscount does not have the merit of the simplicity of Amendment No. 78. I am grateful—although I express my gratitude rather grudgingly—for the explanation which the Minister gave, which goes some part of the way to allaying the fears which led to Amendment No. 78 being tabled.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: I should like to support warmly what the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said. I am particularly interested in the National Heritage Memorial Fund and how its affairs will be conducted in the future when the national lottery is in operation.
I want to make it plain that, as I said at Second Reading, the success of the National Heritage Memorial Fund in the first 13 years of its existence —a success which is underlined by the fact that it has been chosen by the Government to distribute the heritage money from the lottery —is based on two factors. The first is the marvellous support which it has been given by the Government. The second is that hardly ever was any attempt made to interfere with how the money was spent. That is how matters should be run.
One of the objects in setting up the fund in 1980 was to take out of politics the questions of which house or which picture should be saved. That object has been successfully achieved during the past 13 years. If the Secretary of State is to have the power to direct how the money is spent, the whole matter will be right back in the political field. One may be quite certain that if anything goes wrong, the Government will get the full blame for it. Therefore, if they have any sense they will not take to themselves the right to direct how the money is spent.
I know that the position is more difficult now because much more money is involved. When the National Heritage Memorial Fund was set up, there was very little money to spend and people did not mind so much how it was spent. Now there is a great deal of money and the Government are more interested in how it is spent. The way to control the fund is this: the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing the chairman and trustees; if he does not like the way they operate, all he has to do is to appoint somebody else in their place.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 78A standing in my name. In doing so, I shall not detain the Committee for long.
The amendment deals with the powers of Ministers to make directions under Clause 24, and in particular the importance of their accountability to those whose actions they seek to direct. My anxiety stems from the apparent width of the powers which this clause would seem to give to the Secretary of State to direct where money shall and shall not be distributed. I was grateful to the Minister for making clear that the intention of the clause is to cover a number of administrative matters and not to seek to influence policies which properly lie with the distributing bodies.
I was also grateful for the assurance that there would be a fresh look at the wording to remove ambiguities. The purpose of my amendment is to tighten up that process.
An amendment was tabled in another place requiring Ministers to give affected parties the reasons underlying any proposed direction. What could be fairer than that? Nevertheless, the amendment was opposed. However, Ministers have amended the Bill to require consultation with affected bodies—and of course I welcome that.
However, why is it considered unreasonable to concede a duty to give written reasons to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the Arts Council or whoever else may be the object of a proposed direction? I cherish the hope that the Minister will wish to go further and fare better than to say, as was said in another place, that such a course of action would be burdensome to Ministers. One letter to four, or at most five, bodies would hardly seem to be burdensome. Alternatively, it might be objected that it would set a precedent. I say to that, "Why not?"
My amendment makes negligible inroads into the structure of the Bill and, I venture to suggest, adds to the transparency of its operation. Put simply, I need to know why the Government believe that they are entitled not to explain their actions.
In fairness, I have had extremely helpful private correspondence from the Minister for which I am most grateful. I have been largely reassured. However, in moving the amendment, I believe that it is sufficiently important for a reply to be put on the record.
Lord Birkett: I support the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Gibson. Bodies such as the Arts Council, in their independence from government, have always been supposed to operate under the arm's length principle. All of a sudden in this Bill the Arts Council and other bodies will be in the position of being told what to do by the Secretary of State. For a long time I have maintained that the arm's length principle is a good one but that the arm is growing shorter. I ask my noble friend whether the National Lottery etc. Bill represents its final amputation.
Lord Swinfen: In the event of the Committee accepting Amendment No. 76, I shall not move Amendment No. 77. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to assure the Committee that between now

1593
and Report stage he will reflect on what has been said by other Members of the Committee and consider bringing forward further amendments to satisfy the House at that time. I have the feeling tonight that the Committee is not satisfied with the efforts of the Minister even though it is grateful for those efforts. I urge him to let the Committee know that he is prepared to consider the matter and possibly to go further at another stage.
Lord Annan: 1 support my noble friend Lord Gibson. I believe that the clause has a sinister ring to it. Civil servants in departments are always looking for chances to increase the powers of the Secretary of State because by so doing they increase their own powers. It is they who will advise the Secretary of State to interfere in the matter since the power is already there for him to do so by an ingeniously constructed clause in the Bill.
What is the need for such a provision? I can hear the civil servants saying, "Secretary of State, we must have a clause to stop these people feathering their nest". Whoever has suggested that any one of those quangos—the National Heritage Memorial Fund or the Arts Council--will feather its own nest? Indeed, how can they, when each year they produce a report showing exactly what has happened to their funds? Parliament is always able to debate that report.
The clause is unnecessary and sinister, and I very much hope that the noble Viscount will have further conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, to see whether they can do what in my view ought to be done; that is, have it totally deleted or very much watered down. The whole principle of those bodies being independent of the Secretary of State has been whittled away gradually over the past 10 years. One has seen this tendency, more and more, of the Government's desire to put into the grasp of the Secretary of State powers that really ought to be in the hands of the chairmen and trustees of the bodies.
Lord Lucas: In pursuing, as I hope he will, the laudable aims of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and others, I ask my noble friend Lord Astor not to go so far that he makes himself unable to fulfil the assurance that he gave earlier to retain powers to persuade the Arts Council to do a great deal better than at present for film and amateur arts when it has the money from the lottery.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Just a moment. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, but I cannot conceive of civil servants saying to Ministers, "We must stop these people feathering their own nests". There is no need for it and no suggestion of it. I agree with the acquisition of power, but we should not put into the minds of this Committee that permanent civil servants talk to Ministers about other bodies "feathering their own nests".
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps first I may deal with the point raised by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cavendish. It would require that the Secretary of State furnish a body with written reasons for any
1594
direction under this clause. Perhaps I may explain what we expect to happen under Clause 24. The Secretary of State may not give a body a direction without first consulting it. During this consultation period, the body will be able to consider and explore the reasons given by the Secretary of State for each direction. The directions will be given by letter and the Secretary of State is likely to reiterate his intentions for these in the body of the letter. Of course, Parliament is always able to require the Secretary of State to account for any direction given, just as it may over the use of any power.
I suggest, therefore, that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary, since the Secretary of State may not refuse to account for decisions taken in the fulfilment of his duties. During the consultation process before a direction is issued the distributors will be made aware of the intentions behind each direction. If a direction appeared to be based on unreasonable grounds the Secretary of State could be asked by Parliament to account for his decision because the annual report of the distributor will contain the directions and will be laid before Parliament each year.
The Government cannot accept the introduction of a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to provide a formal list of reasons when this duty does not exist in other comparable uses of delegated powers. Secretaries of State are not required by statute to explain their reasons for taking executive decisions; they are required to behave reasonably, and they are held accountable by Parliament if such account is considered necessary. Therefore, the Government cannot see the special advantage of a statutory requirement in this matter. I hope that reply reassures my noble friend Lord Cavendish.
Perhaps I may turn to the other points about Clause 24. I said at Second Reading that I should consider Clause 24. I have considered it and have come forward with the new clause. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said: "What is the difference between government expenditure and lottery money?" There is a big difference. The Government can decide not to fund one of the bodies for which they are responsible; they can withdraw the funds. However, once the Bill is passed the lottery money will flow through to those distributive bodies. The Secretary of State cannot stop it flowing through; it will arrive. What is more, the noble Lord will see from subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 25 that the Secretary of State can make an order to amend the percentages. But we have said that the Secretary of State will only look at that once in every Parliament. Subsection (2) (a) states that,
"no percentage lower than 5 per cent. is specified in section 20(3)".
So the Secretary of State cannot take away lottery funds as he can government expenditure. That is why there has to be some power. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said that directions would be given to the distributing bodies as to how to spend the money. That is not the point. The only time that the Secretary of State would have to act under this clause would be

1595
on the question of how they should not spend the money. Perhaps I may give the Committee some examples.
An example of a type of body which is too close to a distributing body and therefore should not be enabled to benefit from that distributing body's decisions is the Sports Council's trust company. That is because one of the members of the Sports Council's trust company is the Sports Council itself. Although we are confident that the Sports Council will accept that funding such a closely allied body would be improper, it is important for the future that the Government have the power to prevent that sort of arrangement from taking place.
There are other ways in which one body might have a material influence over another body as well as in the sense of owning it. For example, a distributing body may appoint some or all of the trustees of a charitable trust without owning it or sponsoring it and be able to, or be seen to, influence that trust. The Secretary of State should be able to consider where a distributing body has this sort of influence even when it does not own the body.
As I have said, there is no power in Clause 24 for the Secretary of State to get his hands on the money. Clause 24 deals with the general matters of propriety rather than the specific details of what not to spend it on. The reason why it is important to ensure that distributors cannot be beneficiaries or control them is that once the national lottery is running the money will pass statutorily to the distributing bodies without any government intervention except for rules on the drawing down of funds.
The aim of the national lottery is to allow funds to flow through to a wide range of applicants. For a distributing body to devote funds to its own close purposes rather than responding to those applicants would be a failure for all concerned. The Secretary of State will prevent a body from being a beneficiary only in the very restricted circumstances that I have outlined. I believe that the Committee will accept that the Secretary of State needs this power.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked: why not say who it should go to? That is one thing that the Secretary of State is not saying. The distributing bodies will decide where the money from the lottery will go. The only thing that the Secretary of State has to make sure of is that they do it with propriety. If they do not do it with propriety and it goes to a body over which they have some control, he must have a reserve power to act if necessary.
It is an absolutely crucial part of the way that the national lottery is set up that the operator must be entirely separate from the regulatory body and that the regulatory body, OFLOT, must be different from the distributing bodies. These must be three separate legs. It is crucial that the distributing body is never seen to benefit from the proceeds.
Lord Gibson: As I listened to the Minister I had the impression that we were shooting past each other. I should therefore like to reserve the right to come back at a later
stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 78A not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 78B:
Page II, line 9, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 78C:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Power of the Secretary of State to prohibit distribution of money in certain cases
.—(1) Where subsection (2) applies, the Secretary of State may by order prohibit a body from distributing money under section 23(1) to a person specified in the order.
(2) This subsection applies if at the time the order is made—

(a) the person specified is a company of which the body, or a wholly-owned subsidiary of the body, is a member, or

(b) the Secretary of State considers that the body is able (whether directly or indirectly) to control or materially to influence the policy of the person specified in carrying on any undertaking or performing any functions.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a)"company" means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 or a company to which the provisions of that Act or Order apply as they apply to a company so formed and registered, and

(b)"wholly-owned subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of that Act or Article 4 of that Order.

(4) A body shall provide the Secretary of State with such information as he may require for the purpose of exercising his powers under this section in relation to the body.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Power to amend section 20]:
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 85 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Power to amend section 21]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 85A:
Page 12, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may exercise his powers under that subsection so as to remove from section 21 any body that has contravened or failed to comply with a requirement or prohibition imposed on it by or under section 24 or (Power of the Secretary of State to prohibit distribution of money in certain cases).").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 76. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Winding up of fund allocated under section 20(3) (e)]:
[Amendment No. 86 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 12, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 87 1 shall speak also to Amendment No. 108 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
The purpose of the amendment to Clause 27 is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to extend the life of the Millennium Fund beyond 31st December in the year 2000. 1 am concerned that unless that power is removed from the Bill the fund may continue indefinitely.
As the Bill is currently framed, the Millennium Fund will receive the same share of lottery proceeds as the arts, sport, the heritage and charities. That seems inappropriate given the lack of clarity which at present obtains in regard to the aims of the fund. The Conservative Party manifesto said that the fund would finance projects which celebrate the start of the next millennium and will be of lasting benefit to the nation. I cannot see how a street party can be of lasting benefit to the nation, which is something that was mentioned as possibly being funded.
Despite the Government's assurances to the contrary, there is a danger that the fund may provide resources solely for large prestigious projects. There is also a danger that, once established, the fund may provide resources for projects which, in its absence, the Government would have funded. For example, if the Government did not decide to mark the start of the next millennium with lottery proceeds, they would dedicate money raised from general taxation to that purpose.
If the Government do not wind up the fund at the end of the year 2000, we may find that they suggest other projects on which the money should be spent—other celebrations, other anniversaries—which, in the absence of the lottery, would have been funded from general taxation revenue or public subscription. I am not necessarily talking of this Government. There is some time between now and the year 2000 and there will be another government, no matter what colour. By law we have to have an election between now and then.
It is vitally important that the fund should be wound up at the end of the year 2000 and that the resources previously dedicated to the fund should be spread equally between the four other recipients. The Government suggested that they wished to keep the reserve power to extend the life of the Millennium Fund in order to provide for circumstances where projects already started with Millennium Fund grants required continued funding for their completion. However, it is not necessary to leave a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to extend the life of the fund in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment No. 108 to Clause 38 allows for those circumstances; it gives the Millennium Commission a duty to,
"ensure that funds are provided to secure the continuation of projects after 3Ist December 2000, where this is appropriate".
The Millennium Commission will therefore be expected to do its job responsibly and ensure that it has built up sufficient endowment funds to meet ongoing commitments. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I rise briefly to support the amendment to which I have also put my name. Those of us who were not in favour of a Millennium Fund in any event would wish to see it drawn to an end as soon as possible. Any money that goes to the Millennium Fund is money that does not go to other causes. In the view of many of us, the sooner that that money finds its way to the other causes, the better. Any danger that it should linger on or require additional money in a
1598
few years is therefore to be deprecated. We hope that the Government will put a date on the ending of the Millennium Fund.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My noble friend's amendment would remove any flexibility to ensure that the Millennium Commission is able to complete funding for one project or another. There is at present no intention of using this—otherwise the Bill would not contain the provisions winding up the Millennium Fund. But we do not know whether it might be necessary to do so, and to leave the Secretary of State with no means of preventing a project from becoming a folly, perhaps unfinished, unused and unfunded, would seem more than unwise. It would be positively wasteful.
The Millennium Commission will when considering a project wish to satisfy itself that there are sufficient funds for the completion of the project, as is proposed by my noble friend in his Amendment No. l08, but. the reserve power in Clause 27 is needed in case exceptional circumstances make it appropriate.
I should also point out that to continue funds going to the Millennium Commission beyond the end of the year 2000 would require the Secretary of State to consult Parliament. The order is subject to affirmative resolution so Parliament would have to consider explicitly any case to extend the Millennium Fund. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend goes some way towards satisfying me. I want to ensure that the fund comes to an end. I also want to make certain that. where a project has been started that is designed to reach fruition or completion after the end of this millennium, funds are put aside specifically for that project. That is what the two amendments are designed to do. I shall look at the matter again between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Accounts of the Secretary of State and National Debt Commissioners]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 13, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) Each account prepared under subsection (1) or (2) and each report prepared under subsection (3) shall he referred for scrutiny to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: It will not have escaped the attention of the Government and indeed of the Committee that there is considerable anxiety as to how these moneys will be handled. Those of us. including myself, who initially were opposed to the whole idea of a national lottery were converted to it because of the desirability of having available to charities, sport, arts and the heritage moneys which are free of government control and which can be obtained from another source irrespective of the attitude of government towards the work that they are

1599
doing. This is particularly important in the case of voluntary organisations and charities whose major function is to take up issues which may well not be welcomed by government and may therefore lead to a limitation in government funding. It is the possibility of access to independent funds which has converted a number of us to support for the national lottery and for this Bill. But that whole argument falls if in reality the Government maintain a considerable amount of control over how these moneys are to be allocated and the Treasury has its hands on the money. It is to ensure that that does not happen that Amendment No. 88A, together with Amendments Nos. 91A and 110A, is being moved.
These are large sums of money and there must be proper inspection and proper control by responsible persons. But that does not necessarily mean the Treasury—far from it. That is why we are suggesting here that there should be an annual report to a joint committee of both Houses and that this should include the opportunity for detailed study of how the money has been handled, how it has been allocated and, very important indeed, how the Government have been handling over the years the allocation that they have made to organisations. It can then be seen whether there has been any reduction in government funding because of the funding that has been coming from the Treasury. We have all too much experience of the problems of additionality in connection with European funds to wish to risk it again in connection with the lottery.
It is for those reasons that we would like a report to be made to a joint committee of both Houses which can be examined in the thorough way in which such matters are examined by joint committees. That will give far better, and public, control over the moneys than if such control is in the hands of the Treasury. It also gets rid of the fear that the Government will take a high proportion of the money to themselves by one route or another and therefore undermine what is, in the eyes of many of us, the justification for having a national lottery. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I support this series of amendments. I have grave misgivings about the whole Bill. It creates possibilities for patronage and influence of an unpredictable sort. The more parliamentary control that there can be over the result the better.
Viscount Astor: I hope to be able to explain to the noble Baroness that these amendments are unnecessary. First, the Bill already contains a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the Secretary of State; secondly, the amendments place a burden on Parliament which as well as being unnecessary is unacceptable.
Amendment No. 88A calls for the report of the Secretary of State on the National Lottery Distribution Fund, and the report on the investments of the fund by the National Debt Commissioners, to be scrutinised by a Committee of both Houses. That will duplicate the work of the Public Accounts Committee, who will already be able to scrutinise these essentially factual sets of accounts, as well as the
1600
Heritage Select Committee, who will have a proper role in examining all matters to do with the national lottery. If those bodies come up with any matters for concern in their deliberations, then the concerns will be able to be taken up in the usual way in both Houses. The reports will be laid before both Houses which represents, I believe, the right degree of scrutiny. It is far better to give Parliament the opportunity to act if it seems necessary than to force a parliamentary workload that is already overburdened to take on an additional and unnecessary task without discretion as to its necessity or desirability.
Amendments Nos. 91A and 110A call for the reports of the nine distributive bodies also to be scrutinised by such a committee. The amendments are unnecessary for similar reasons to those I explained earlier. The scrutiny machinery already exists and we would be placing an unnecessary additional burden on Parliament. It is intended that the National Audit Office will audit the accounts of those bodies and that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have full rights of access to, and inspection of, the lottery accounts, and that the Public Accounts Committee will be able to scrutinise fully the way in which that money is accounted for.
The National Heritage Select Committee (in the case of arts, sport, heritage and the Millennium Commission) will be able to consider the work of the national lottery in general and scrutinise the performance of the way those bodies have performed in their task of distributing the lottery money. The Home Affairs Select Committee will be able to scrutinise the work of the charities board.
So it is clear that the machinery for proper and effective parliamentary scrutiny already exists. With that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will see that her amendments are not necessary.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I listened with care to the Minister's reply to the amendments as regards the safeguards that exist at present. But the latest information concerning the work of the Public Accounts Committee gives a clear indication that they do not fulfil the preventive function described. One has only to refer to the recent Public Accounts Committee report on the West Midlands Regional Health Authority and the one which is about to be unleashed regarding the appalling situation in the Wessex Regional Health Authority. There is also the matter referred to in the headlines of the Evening Standard tonight of what has taken place in the Welsh Development Agency.
I would take some comfort from what the Minister has said if those three incidents had been avoided, but the fact is that the Public Accounts Committee, as I see it, is not a safeguard. It can act only when such incidents are reported to it. Clearly, it only got to know about the cases to which I have referred once the horse had bolted. That is when the stable door was locked.
What the Minister has said tonight does not give me any comfort that Secretaries of State for various departments, who have asked for powers in this House and another place, and who have said that they should provide a safeguard and be the custodians of public

1601
expenditure, will actually provide that safeguard. They have let the side down. Given the three performances that I have quoted, the Minister has not assured me—I am sure that he has not assured other Members of the Committee either—that Ministers will be in a different position in future and that they will be able to prevent what has happened before from happening again in the future. What is needed is current scrutiny—not scrutiny once disasters have occurred. I hope that the Minister can be a little more forthcoming about that.
Baroness Seear: I do not think that the Minister will be surprised to hear that I was not at all satisfied by his reply. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, pointed out, leaving all this to the Public Accounts Committee is not a substitute in any way. I do not think that it is for the Government to try to protect Parliament from carrying out a duty of scrutiny. If Parliament decides that it does not want to do that, then that is what it has decided; but it is for Parliament to say whether it wants to set up a piece of machinery (on a joint basis between the two Houses) to carry out a proper examination of these reports, and to be able to go into them in detail.
The Minister underrates the anxiety, and indeed, the suspicion, which a great many of us feel about the way in which these moneys will be handled. If he wants to quieten that suspicion and to reassure us, he should accept the suggestion in the amendment, rather than reject it. Tonight is not the time to test the opinion of the Committee, so although I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I shall most certainly consider bringing it back at a later stage. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Annual reports by distributing bodies other than Millennium Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 89 to 92 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Accounts of distributing bodies other than Charities Board and Millennium Commission]:
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendment of the National Heritage Act 1980]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 30, leave out lines 27 to 32 and insert:
("(6) In subsection (6) (d) (the Secretary of State acting in the discharge of certain functions is an "eligible recipient") the words from "acting" to "1979" shall be omitted.").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 94 and 131 are technical in nature but remove an anomaly which would have prevented certain monuments principally in Scotland and Wales from being able to receive any money from the lottery. Without these amendments, it would not, to take a purely illustrative example, be possible for the Secretary of State in Scotland to apply for a lottery grant for an additional capital project for, say, Edinburgh Castle, whereas it
1602
would have been possible for English Heritage in England to apply for lottery funds for such a project, say, at Dover Castle.
These are straightforward amendments which put right a genuine oversight. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [The National Lottery Charities Board]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 31, leave out lines 8 to 26 and insert:
("Committees
2.—(1) The Charities Board shall establish four committees for the purpose of exercising the Board's functions in relation to applications by charities for grants in respect of appropriate activities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—

"appropriate activities" means activities in relation to which the Charities Board consider it appropriate to delegate their functions to a committee established under that sub-paragraph, and

"charities" includes institutions such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of the definition of "charitable expenditure" in section 41(1).

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1), any function of the Charities Board may be exercised by any committee of theirs authorised by them (whether generally or specially) for that purpose.
(4) A committee of the Charities Board shall consist of a chairman and two or more other members.
(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), all the members of a committee of the Charities Board shall be members of the Board.
(6) In the case of a committee other than one established under sub-paragraph (1), any member other than the chairman may be a person who is not a member of the Charities Board but is appointed to the committee by the Secretary of State at the Board's request.
Tenure of office
2A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as chairman or other member of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not appoint a person to hold office as a member of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs for a term of more than five years.
(3) A chairman or member of the Charities Board or a person appointed to a committee of theirs by the Secretary of State may at any time resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.
(4) A member of the Charities Board or a person appointed to a committee of theirs by the Secretary of State may be removed from office by the Secretary of State on the ground that—

(a) he has been absent for a period longer than three consecutive months from meetings of the Board without the Board's consent or (as the case may be) from meetings of the committee without the committee's consent,

(b) a bankruptcy order has been made against him or his estate has been sequestrated or he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors, or

(c) he is unable or unfit to discharge the functions of his office.

(5) If a chairman of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs ceases to be a member of the Board he shall also cease to be chairman.
(6) A person who ceases, otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph (4), to be a member or chairman of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs shall be eligible for re-appointment.").
The noble Viscount said: For the distribution of charities' share of the lottery proceeds, the Bill proposes a charities board of 16 members plus a chairman, appointed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has agreed that of those 16 he will appoint three on the nomination of each of the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. He will also appoint three in respect of England and four in respect of the UK as a whole. Each group of three nominees will form the majority membership of the national committees which the board will be required to establish.
The size of the charities board can be increased by order, but anything much bigger would be unwieldy as a central policy-making body. The committee responsible for any constituent part of the UK will be composed predominantly of those nominated by the relevant Secretary of State. They will sit on the charities board, and they will form a majority of the board members (that is, nine out of 16). Thus, the interests of the UK as a whole and of its constituent parts will be protected.
It has been suggested to us, however, by the charitable organisations that the board, as envisaged, will not be adequate for the volume of applications expected. That may be as many as 100,000 grant applications per year. The organisations speak from a wealth of experience of grant-making, so I understand the concern.
The amendment addresses the concern. It enables the Home Secretary, at his discretion but on application by the board, to appoint as members of any board committees other than the four national ones—for example, a committee for charities operating overseas, perhaps in the Commonwealth—people who are not members of the board itself. Their decision-making powers will be restricted to the committees upon which they serve; the committees will be required to have a board member as chairman, and there must be at least one board member at each committee meeting.
We believe that the amendment will enable the board to have whatever additional decision-making power it needs without giving rise to other problems. It will not affect the structure of the board, its size and composition, its duty to appoint national committees, its power to appoint other committees, and its ability to regulate its own procedure. It will be for the board to decide what committees to appoint, what decisions to delegate to them and what their relations should be with the national committees. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: I speak to Amendments Nos. 101 to 103 which are grouped with Amendment No. 96 and which are in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I hope that the Minister will think that these are all helpful additions to the Bill. Amendment No. 101 is designed to place on the face
1604
of the Bill the Government's intention that the committees of the charities board shall have sole responsibility for dealing with applications for funds to benefit the areas that they cover. The last part of the amendment will make it possible for the board to delegate other functions to the committees.
The Rothschild Royal Commission Report on gambling published in 1978 recommended devolution of decision making to boards in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That was done largely upon the basis of the size and complexity of the task of distributing grants which, given that nearly 500,000 voluntary organisations are involved, is clearly a vast one.
The Bill partially recognises the principle of devolution in that it proposes separate grant-making committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; but what is at issue—it is an issue on the face of the Bill as it stands—is the degree of independence that those committees will be allowed.
Amendment No. 101 is aimed at securing some assurances from the Minister that the distribution committees proposed in those areas will have the powers to develop grant-making policies within the broad framework which is agreed by the National Lottery Charities Board. We understand that it is the Government's intention that the committees should have that degree of independence, but the provisions of the Bill would leave the way open for the National Lottery Charities Board to take all decisions centrally. If that turned out to be the case, the mechanism set up to distribute the charities' share of national lottery proceeds would not be sensitive enough to the needs of a voluntary sector as they apply separately in each of the different areas.
It is surely important that the national committees should have the independence to develop their own grant-making policies, because the voluntary sectors in those areas are different from one another. Funding decisions which are made at a nation level can appreciate and take account of those differences in a way that a centralised distribution system hinging on a central national lotteries board could not. Similarly, a central distributing board will not be able to see and to respond to the particular needs of its area in anything like as sensitive a way as a national committee could.
Another reason why it is important that a distribution system should be decentralised and each committee allowed the power to develop its own policies is that there is otherwise a danger that current patterns of funding will be replicated and that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will thus lose out. Those countries are already at a disadvantage because there are few charitable trusts based in or dedicated to funding voluntary activity in those areas. This bias in trust funding has been recognised in the sector and, as a consequence, some trusts such as the Baring Foundation have introduced what might be called positive action programmes to get funding into those areas.
It is recognised that the central UK National Lottery Charities Board will decide the broad policy parameters within which each of the nation

1605
committees will operate. For instance, the board will have to decide which categories of activity can best be funded centrally—for example, overseas aid—and how applications which cross nation boundaries will be handled. It will also need to establish guidelines in relation to good administration and so forth. However, the board will not be sufficiently close to the ground to decide what are the strategic funding priorities in each of those areas.
To sum up, the purpose of Amendment No. 101, which I hope the Government will accept, is to obtain a commitment that they intend that the committees set up to administer grants in each of those areas will have the power to develop their own grant-making policies within a broad framework established nationally. That is vital if the mechanism is to be sensitive to the particular needs of those areas.
Amendment No. 102 sets out the formula for the composition of the nation committees of the charities board. It retains the original provision of the Bill that three members of the board shall be on each nation committee while referring to the earlier amendment providing that one of them shall have been specifically appointed following a process of open selection to chair the nation committee. The Government have indicated that it is their intention that the three board members specified in the Bill as it stands shall be from the relevant nation. Increasing the membership is intended to ensure that the nation committee is large enough to carry out the necessary tasks and also that it will be as representative as is likely to be possible.
The amendment removes the Bill's provision that committees of the board shall consist of three or more members of the board. I understand that the Home Office has indicated that the committees provided are to serve as regional and policy advisory committees. Requiring them to consist of three members of the board is impracticable for two reasons; first, it significantly limits the number of committees which it would be possible to set up and, secondly, it prevents the involvement of people with relevant expertise.
Amendment No. 103 is intended to ensure that the National Lottery Charities Board consults the relevant nation committee before making decisions about awarding grants which would be of particular benefit to two or more of the four nations. It is generally agreed that one of the important functions of the National Lottery Charities Board will be to decide grants for projects where the activity to be funded is of benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole; for example overseas aid or medical research, or where applications are made for work which crosses boundaries. Where work is of benefit to only one nation in the United Kingdom the work will be funded by the relevant nation committee. The Government appear to envisage that the National Lottery Charities Board will set up specialist advisory committees to offer advice on funding for areas which it funds centrally because they are of benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole, as in the cases of which I have given examples, or where the charity is engaged in providing overseas aid.
The National Lottery Charities Board will also consider applications for work which crosses UK
1606
boundaries in the same way as it would be sensible for specialist advice to be obtained about areas such as medical research or overseas aid. Where the National Lottery Charities Board is funding work which crosses boundaries but which gives particular benefit, for example, to people in Wales and England, it would surely be sensible for the grant making committees in those two nations to be consulted about the appropriateness of the particular scheme to meet the needs of their areas.
The amendment would ensure that the National Lottery Charities Board will take the best possible decision when it is considering applications for work which crosses boundaries in that way and which is of particular benefit to two or more nations simply by requiring the board to consult with the relevant nations on the merits of those applications. I hope that the noble Viscount will riot consider that to be a startling proposition.
Viscount Astor: It may help the Committee if I reply to the amendment at this stage. The first part of the amendment would effectively establish a national committee as a separate board. The Government considered carefully the idea of separate boards for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales but rejected it because it ignored overseas issues. Some organisations operate nationwide or in more than one area. Some beneficiaries might provide in one area a resource which benefits all. Some might conduct research that benefits all. The board must be able to address those issues.
It must also have a policy overview and be able to decide, for example, when there is a need for consistency across the nation or when there needs to be a concerted UK response to an EC or UN initiative. For those reasons, the board needs to be able to regulate its own procedures. That includes deciding what are appropriate activities for delegation to the committees. National interests will be protected by the fact that the majority of the board are members of those committees.
The board and its committees will have the power to appoint expert advisers and these could be from the local voluntary sector. We recognise that there may be a need for more people with a power to take decisions and I brought forward an earlier amendment to that effect.
Those extra committee members will be appointed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary at the request of the board. They will not be available to sit on the national committees, in order to ensure that the majority on those committees are appointed by the relevant Secretary of State and together comprise the majority of the charities board itself. It will be for the board itself and for the national committees to decide what other committees to appoint, what will be their functions and how they will relate to the national committees. For example, a national committee may decide that certain decisions should be dealt with by regional committees or that there should be a special committee for special types of application. The government amendment will provide that the chairman of any committee must be a member of the

1607
board and that the committee's proceedings will not be valid unless one of those present is a board member.
I turn now to Amendment No. 103. The procedures of the National Lottery Charities Board are for that body to decide. But it will of course, in appropriate cases, ensure that consultations take place with the statutory national committees (of which they are the members) on any application which benefits more than one of the countries of the UK. I remind the Committee that 12 members of the 16 on the board will be from the national committees. It will be in their interests to get their procedures right, and I have every confidence that they will do so. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I recognise that the Government are alert to the need to be sensitive to the different needs of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But listening to the noble Baroness's comprehensive and clear exposition of the amendments which stand also in my name, I fear that the Government have not gone far enough. There is a tremendous suspicion that the whole of the national lottery will turn out to be English dominated—and not just English dominated but London dominated. It will be metropolitan in its priorities.
Whether or not we pursue the matter this evening, the Government must look at the sense of these three amendments to see whether they cannot specifically recognise that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will wish there to be a substantial measure of strategic direction within their own territories. I have some parliamentary responsibility for Northern Ireland. I can assure Members of the Committee that it will not be adequate for Northern Ireland to say as and when they may be consulted. Something more is required.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 97 and 98:
Page 31, line 31, leave out ("and other members") and insert ("and any other member of the Board or any committee of theirs").
Page 32, leave out lines 22 to 37.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I must advise the Committee that I cannot call Amendment No. 99 because Amendment No. 98 has been agreed to.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 100 to 103 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 32, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) No committee of the Charities Board may exercise any function of the Board at a meeting unless one of the members present is a member of the Board.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Millennium Commission]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 33, line 38, at end insert:
(" (c) one shall be nominated after consultation with the leaders of the minority parties other than Her Majesty's Opposition.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 106. We have opposed the whole concept of the Millennium Fund and the Millennium Commission, but it seems that the Government are determined to have it. However, if they are determined to have it, there are two reasons why they should consider the inclusion on the commission of a representative of the minority parties. First, regularly at general elections in this country for some decades now one in four voters has not voted for either the Conservative or Labour Parties. Some account should be taken of that fact.
The second reason why the Government should consider the inclusion of a representative of the minority parties as well as a representative of the Labour Party on the Millennium Commission is that there are to be two representatives of the Government. At recent elections the Government received somewhere between 40 and 45 per cent. of the votes of the people of this country. As we were assured earlier by the noble Viscount, the commission is not meant in any way to be government-dominated. Surely, therefore, they could give effect to that non-government domination by having two representatives of the government and two other representatives; for example, one from the Labour Party and one from the minority parties.
I realise that giving such a speech from these Benches will seem to be self-interested. However, it is not directly self-interested; it is a plea to the Government to try to make the Millennium Commission as broadly representative of the people of this country as possible. In that sense, I hope that they will take on board the arguments that I have put forward. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: In establishing the Millennium Commission, we recognised that we were establishing a far-reaching and visionary body which would be of interest to the whole nation. We want the membership of the commission to reflect a wide spectrum of the experience, skills and opinion, besides those of politicians. Therefore, we thought it right that only two members out of nine on the commission should be Ministers of the Crown—that is right because the focus of the commission will cross the interests of a number of government departments—and also that that minimal political representation should be complemented by one member nominated by the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. Of course, it is a delicate political matter.
We have chosen to seek a nomination from Her Majesty's Opposition because the official Opposition has a particular and definable role within our constitution. It is a fact, however regrettable to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that the official role is not available to the minority opposition parties at present. If it were to become so, the position could be reconsidered by, for example, the then Prime

1609
Minister in advising Her Majesty the Queen who appoints members to the commission on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The noble Viscount certainly gives our party a substantial incentive to continue our advance towards the citadels of power, including the Millennium Commission. It is too late at night for us to press this amendment but it is a subject to which we shall return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Grants in respect of projects]:
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Annual report]:
[Amendments Nos. 109, 110 and II0A not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 42 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 111:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
Importation and exportation restrictions
(".—(1) In section I of the Revenue Act 1898 (prohibition on the importation of advertisements and notices relating to lotteries) as it applies in the United Kingdom, after "importation" there shall be inserted "from a place outside the British Islands and the member States".
(2) In section 2(1) of the 1976 Act (general lottery offences)—

(a) in paragraph (d) (bringing or sending lottery tickets or advertisements into Great Britain) after "Great Britain" there shall be inserted "from a place outside the British Islands and the member States", and

(b) in paragraph (e) (sending lottery proceeds etc. out of Great Britain) after "Great Britain" there shall be inserted "to a place outside the British Islands and the member States".

(3) In Article 132(1) of the Betting, Gaming. Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (general lottery offences)—

(a) in paragraph (d) (bringing or sending lottery tickets or advertisements into Northern Ireland) after "Northern Ireland" there shall be inserted "from a place outside the British Islands and the member States", and

(b) in paragraph (f) (sending lottery proceeds etc. out of Northern Ireland) after "Northern Ireland" there shall be inserted "to a place outside the British Islands and the member States".").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 111, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 136. The new clause does no more than remove the border control on lottery material; in other words, bringing tickets and advertising material into the country via the ports and via the post. At the best of times this has not been a particularly effective method of enforcement. The real enforcement will be that, once in this country, the material cannot be used to advertise the lottery of another country. The prohibition on the promotion of foreign lotteries in this country, including lotteries which emanate from our European partners, will therefore continue to apply.
The only difference resulting from this amendment is that in relation to lottery material coming from a member state, the enforcement of the prohibition will rely exclusively on the inland controls and not on a mixture of border and inland controls. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Registration of societies]:
Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 36, line 25, after ("refuse") insert ("or revoke").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 112 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 113 to 116.
Paragraph 3A of Schedule 1 of the 1976 Act requires a local authority to refuse an application for the registration of a society if the Gaming Board has in the past five years refused or revoked the registration of the society under Schedule 1 A. This is designed to prevent a society, which has had its registration refused or revoked by the Gaming Board, from promoting lotteries instead under a local authority registration.
The scheme of the 1976 Act, which is amended by Part III of the Bill, is that a society must promote its lotteries under either a Gaming Board registration or a local authority registration, whichever is appropriate. There is, though, nothing to stop a society from maintaining a "dormant" local authority registration during the period when it is promoting lotteries under a board registration.
Amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 115 therefore extend a local authority's duty from refusing a registration in the circumstances which I have described, to including a duty to revoke a current registration. This will ensure that new paragraph 3A will operate in the way intended. Amendment No. 114 disapplies paragraph 3A where the board has refused or revoked a registration under this head. The local authority will clearly not need to know in these cases that a refusal or a revocation by the board has, in fact, occurred. Amendment No. 116 absolves the board of the requirement to notify the local authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 116:
Page 36, line 27, leave out from ("below") to end of line 29 and insert ("within the last live years").
Page 36, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply where the ground for the Board's refusal or revocation was that specified in paragraph 3(2) (e) of Schedule IA below.").
Page 36, line 30, after ("refuse") insert ("or revoke").
Page 39, line 28, after ("and") insert (", except in the case of a refusal or revocation on the ground specified in sub-paragraph (2) (e) above,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Frequency of lotteries]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 116A and 116B:
Page 19, line 31, leave out from ("that") to ("under") in line 32 and insert ("may be promoted").
Page 19, line 33, after ("months") insert ("on behalf of the same society or by the same local authority").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 116A and 116B are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Rules for lotteries]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 20, line 10, leave out ("10") and insert ("20").
The noble Lord said: Although Amendment No. 117 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 118 and 118A I shall speak only to Amendment No. 117 as the other amendments concern a different subject.
The purpose of the amendment is to increase the limit on the maximum prize in a society lottery from £25,000 or 10 per cent. of potential ticket sales to £25,000 or 20 per cent. of ticket sales, whichever is the greater.
Research suggests that the national lottery could have a dramatic effect on charitable income from small lotteries. Charities in the Republic of Ireland have experienced a 60 per cent. drop in their small lottery income since the creation of the state lottery in 1987. According to a report in the Guardian, the Government's own GAH report suggested that the drop in small lottery income in the United Kingdom as a result of the national lottery could be as great as 50 per cent.
The Government are shortly to bring forward Amendment No. 118A which will increase the limit on the size of a small lottery from £500,000 to £1 million, which I welcome.
It has been argued during the course of debate on the Bill that the size of the top prize in the national lottery will be the crucial factor in determining sales. Surely, the same argument holds for small lotteries run by charities, sports clubs and community groups. As I believe I have heard my noble friend Lord Ferrers say on more than one occasion, what is sauce for the goose, is surely sauce for the gander. I therefore believe that the maximum top prize in a society lottery should be increased from £25,000 or 10 per cent. to £25,000 or 20 per cent. of potential ticket sales. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The amendments are grouped together. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 118A.
Lord Swinfen: If my noble friend will forgive me, I said that I spoke only to Amendment No. 117. I warned our mutual noble friend Lord Astor at the beginning of proceedings that I would be dealing only with Amendment No. 117.
Earl Ferrers: I understand that my noble friend wishes to speak only to Amendment No. 117. However, the three amendments are grouped together. By putting down Amendment No. 1 18A we have gone a great deal of the way to meet the points which my noble friend has in mind. It was suggested that the prize limits should be doubled. I suggest to the Committee that it would be right to do that and not to go to the largest increase which my noble friend
1612
suggested. If that suggestion were to be accepted, the increase in prize money would be very substantial. It would mean that the maximum proceeds would increase from £180,000 to £1,250,000. It would also mean that the maximum annual proceeds would increase from £2,340,000 to £5 million and that the maximum single prize would increase from £12,000 to £125,000. I understand that my noble friend would like those increases. However, they are fairly substantial. If I might so suggest, it would be better if we have the ones that we propose.
Lord Airedale: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 118A. I do not understand how the provision will work. Amendment No. 118A amends subsection (6). As amended it would state that,
"The total value of the tickets…sold…shall not exceed £1,000,000".
The only way I can see that a promoter can be sure of complying with that requirement is for him to print no more than £1 million worth of tickets and hope that his sellers manage to sell them all. However, I believe that any promoter would say that that is not a recipe for running a successful lottery.
It is not an exact science, but in practice you try to estimate how many tickets you think each seller will manage to sell. Then you give him a surplus in the hope that he will be more successful than you expect and will compensate for the disappointment you may have in other sellers who do not manage to sell as many tickets as you expect. When the money and the unsold tickets come in at the end of the selling period, more than £1 million worth of tickets may have been sold and the promoter will be in breach of the subsection. But all that he has sought to do is to run a successful lottery and to comply with the law so far as he can.
I therefore hope that the Government will consider the matter again and seek to formulate words which will allow the promoter to run a successful lottery and comply with the law. As drafted at present, the subsection makes life very hard for the promoter. It will not lead to a successful lottery.
Lord Mancroft: Perhaps I may speak briefly to my amendment, Amendment No. 118. The purpose of my amendment was not to alter a principle but to make it easier for the operators of society or charity lotteries to reach the Government's allotted annual target. To reach that target 10 lotteries had to be run. Amendment No. 118 would not alter a principle. It seeks to make the position easier in practice.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers has brought forward Amendment No. 118A to which he has spoken. It supersedes my amendment. I say with gratitude that it is better than the amendment in my name. Amendment No. 118A solves the problem —it is a technical one—and allows the promoters of smaller charity or society lotteries to run them more satisfactorily.
I shall not attempt to get into the area that my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, did of describing the figures exactly and how the provision would work, because it is almost impossible to describe it in such a way that those

1613
listening can understand it. Suffice it to say that those of us who were worried that the national lottery would swamp the smaller charity lotteries are extremely grateful to the Government for bringing forward the amendment. It answers our problems completely and I hope that the Committee will accept it.
I have not spoken to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen, which is slightly different. It is aimed at the same area of helping and protecting charity lotteries, but I am not absolutely certain that his amendment does that. Nevertheless, I conclude by saying that I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward Amendment No. 118A, which means that I shall not have to move my own Amendment No. 118.
Baroness Mallalieu: From these Benches, perhaps I may echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. We very much welcome Amendment No. 118A and congratulate the noble Earl on introducing it.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful for those most generous remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Perhaps I may try to address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. He said that all the promoters wanted to do was to operate within the law. If the Committee agrees to Amendment No. 118A the promoters will be able to operate far more easily within the law because the proceeds limit will have been increased from £500,000 to £1 million. The prize limit goes up from £50,000 to £100,000. The noble Lord is worried that the promoters will have to print more tickets. Of course, that happens at present; people print more tickets and take a risk. That is part of the professionalism of running a lottery or any business. The point is that the limit will be £1 million and they must not go over the limit. If they do, if they take a risk and are wrong, then they breach the law.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend has increased the size of the lottery that can be run by a society, which is very welcome. He has not raised, as I seek to raise, the prize money available to those who wish to participate in the lottery.
When we were discussing the national lottery, a figure of 50 per cent. of the proceeds was suggested as being available for prize money. I do not suggest that. I suggest a maximum of 20 per cent. It is a matter of making charitable lotteries as attractive as the national lottery to those who may wish to take a chance on them. As has been mentioned, charities fear that they will lose income to the national lottery. I should be grateful if, between now and the next stage, my noble friend would consider that. I shall also give his comments some thought because it may be that the wording of this subsection needs to be slightly changed to show that it is the total value of prizes that I am after, not just the value of one prize. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 20, line 13, leave out ("£500,000") and insert("£1,000,000").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 21, line 6, at end insert:
("(16) The amount of the proceeds of a society's lottery or a local lottery appropriated for the provision of prizes and the amount of those proceeds appropriated on account of expenses (exclusive of prizes) shall not exceed in aggregate a prescribed percentage of the whole proceeds of the lottery.").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 121 and 122. Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe a maximum proportion of the proceeds of a lottery which may be used for expenses and prizes. The effect of a maximum like this would be to guarantee a minimum proportion for good causes. If, for example, a maximum of 75 per cent. was prescribed, the good causes would be guaranteed at least 25 per cent. of the proceeds.
Amendment No. 122 would enable an order prescribing the maximum percentage of the proceeds which may be used for prizes and expenses and to make different provision for different cases or circumstances. There may be a case, for example, for prescribing a higher percentage for instant lotteries, which tend to return a higher proportion of stakes in prizes than for traditional draw lotteries, where the amount spent on the provision of prizes tends to be rather less. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Defence in respect of a contravention of section 11(5) of the 1976 Act]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment NO. 120A:
Page 21, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert:
("(1) Section 13 of the 1976 Act (offences relating to societies' lotteries and local lotteries) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (contravention of requirement of Act or of regulations made under it) for "or of any regulations made under it" there shall be substituted ", of any regulations made under it or of any order made under section 10 above".
(3) After subsection (2) there shall he inserted-").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 120B. These two amendments are consequential upon the provisions of Clause 47 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 120B:
Page 21, line 20, at end insert:
("(4) In subsection (4) (defence in respect of contravention of section 10 etc.) after "contravention of" there shall be inserted "an order made under".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Powers of the Secretary of State to vary monetary limits and to prescribe or vary fees]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 121 and 122:
Page 21, line 27, at end insert ("or prescribe the percentage referred to in subsection (16) of that section").
Page 21, line 38, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 40 and insert ("for "subsection (1) (e) above" there shall be substituted "subsection (1) above may make different provision for different cases or circumstances and an order made by virtue of paragraph (e) of that subsection".").
The noble Earl said: I move Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 120. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Removal of prohibition on the use of premises for the delivery of football pools coupons and stakes]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 22, line 33, after ("forecasts") insert ("(i)").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 and 125.
We now move on to Part IV of the Bill, a completely different area to all that we have been discussing so far. I have to say to my noble friend that there are four important issues which are covered in the series of amendments to Part IV of the Bill. My noble friend's amendment on roll-over is very important. With the best will in the world, I do not believe that we shall be able to cover the whole of the issue of Part IV of the Bill in the next 18 minutes. I really do feel that Part IV of the Bill, which concerns the football pools industry, a major industry in this country, deserves more than 18 minutes' worth of consideration at Committee stage. However, I shall commence on the amendments.
The Committee will already be aware that during the Bill's passage in another place several amendments were made to take account of the pools industry's right to compete fairly and equally for its existing markets with the national lottery.
From the earliest stages of the Bill—indeed, before it was even introduced—the pools were arguing that their product and the lottery were equivalent forms of long-odds, low-stake gambling which would be competing for similar markets. It was therefore vital that they be afforded the same treatment in the market as was given to the lottery. I am pleased that the Government have agreed to take account of the industry's case, and I am delighted with the distance that they have travelled to accommodate the concerns that have been voiced from many quarters.
Without the amendments the impact of the national lottery would have had serious implications for pools business and, consequently, the jobs of its many thousands of employees on Merseyside, and in Cardiff, Glasgow and London.
Furthermore, the £100 million that the industry currently contributes to good causes through the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the Football Trust would also have been threatened. Most importantly for the Chancellor, of course, a downturn in pools business would also have meant a reduction in the £320 million received by the Treasury in tax revenue.
One of the amendments accepted by the Government to annul those fears dealt with the sale of pools coupons in shops. In short, whereas before it was illegal for pools coupons to be sold in shops, the
1616
Government now recognise that if lottery tickets are to be sold from those premises, so too should pools coupons.
Although technically illegal, it is widely known that pools coupons have, for a long time, been available from shops. In practical terms, therefore, the legalisation of the sales will now make easier the marketing of pools coupons which will be better able to compete with the sale of lottery tickets from the same premises.
While I fully support the spirit of the amendment, I still have a number of concerns in regard to the definition of "qualifying competition" in Clause 52; that is, the type of competition that is allowed on pools coupons sold in shops. The offending text in subsection (4D) (a) of Clause 52 reads:
"a competition for prizes for making forecasts as to association football games to be played on a Saturday, a Sunday or a day that is a bank holiday in England and Wales or in Scotland under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971".
While the Government have come some way in broadening the definition of a "qualifying competition" through the inclusion of association football matches played on Sundays and bank holidays, there is still the problem that the definition does not yet include events other than football —for example, major horse races and cricket matches. Currently, pools companies do, from time to time, use such non-football events on their coupons and, if the amendment is not accepted, will now be unable to do so on their coupons sold in shops.
It is absurd that the pools companies will only be allowed to sell in shops coupons which use football matches while on those coupons which are, for example, sold door to door, they will be allowed to use a number of different sports. The ludicrous situation will be created where the pools would be forced to issue two types of coupons; the first type for sale in shops, which would relate only to football matches, and the second, which would cover the rest of the business.
The Government should therefore consider carefully whether to continue with what I and the pools companies regard as a needless, and extremely petty, restriction. After all, it is already an established practice to run pools competitions on sporting events other than football.
I suspect that my noble friend will resist the amendment on the grounds that it may open a Pandora's Box of pool betting in unlicensed premises. With respect to him and the Government, that is nonsense. Does anybody believe that in 70 years of pools operations in this country it would not have been possible before now, had a market existed for it, to introduce the sort of pools competition the Government now appear to fear. The truth is that the market is limited. How can it be otherwise when the amount of disposable income is limited and 47.5 per cent. of pools turnover disappears in tax and in contributions to good causes even before the proportion available for winners is determined.
All I am seeking is the opportunity for the pools to have the right to continue to operate their business as they have done up to now. If the amendment is not

1617
accepted, it will mean that as well as introducing a national lottery into the United Kingdom, the Bill will also effectively take from the pools industry part of its established business. That can neither be fair nor sensible. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can open the Pandora's Box because, although my noble friend is understandably concerned about the football pools, my concern is in regard to horse-race betting, the levy and horse racing itself. What my noble friend's amendments would do is allow pools betting, as already happens on, say, the Grand National, and that could be extended to other horse racing. That means that horse-race pool betting would be taking place in unlicensed premises. While the horse-race betting industry accepts that the lottery will come along, and that it will have an impact, it does not believe that it is right that that kind of pool betting should be allowed on unlicensed premises. I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said in moving the amendment. He made an extremely good case. As he said, it is a complicated subject and needs extensive discussion, in spite of the eloquent speech he made. It is unfortunate that tonight we are severely restricted by time. We are expected to finish our business in 11 minutes, which means that there is little time to argue the case. Although some time may be available in the spill-over, it is a very small amount of time indeed. On that basis, I support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Brabazon. I do so in an individual capacity—that is why I am not speaking from the Front Bench. I have no doubt that if the issue is not taken tonight we shall be debating the matter at greater length at the Report stage.
Earl Ferrers: I agree with both my noble friend Lord Brabazon and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. My noble friend Lord Brabazon thought that I would probably resist the amendment. He is quite right. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish hoped that I would resist it; and he is right. So we start off in agreement.
These amendments seek to extend the definition of a "qualifying competition". As it is set out in the Bill, the definition relaxes the law to football pools coupons only. The reason for that is simple. As my noble friend Lord Mackay suggested, if we allow pool betting on other sports to take place in newsagents arid other shops, it could potentially turn those shops into unlicensed premises and unregulated betting offices. We should be wary about going down that road.
We have some sympathy for the pools in their companies' desire that existing pool companies should be able to market their other existing pools competitions through retail outlets at the same time as their football competitions. We have therefore given careful consideration to these arguments. But having studied them, I am afraid that they serve only to reinforce our view that it would not be possible to
1618
amend the Bill to allow existing pool promoters to market all their other existing pools competitions through shops without opening up the possibility cif large-scale pool betting on a whole variety of sports —such as horse-racing and dogs: the Pandora's box as my noble friend referred to it —taking place in these premises. The effect would be to undermine the systern of licensed betting offices.
We see two particular difficulties with the amendments. First, I do not think that the well intentioned attempt to limit a pool promoter to 52 other qualifying competitions a year —in other words, competitions which are not based on football —willl achieve its purpose. This restriction could easily be evaded by a parent company setting up any number of subsidiaries, each of which may register as a pool promoter and run its so-called quota of 52 competitions a year.
The second difficulty which we have with the amendments is the definition of a,
"customary pool betting game or sporting event"
I appreciate that the phrase,
"of the same kind as or is broadly similar to",
has a precedent in the British Telecommunications Act 1981, but in this context we believe that it would be too expansive and vague. The phrase could, for example, open the way for pool betting on any horse or greyhound race to take place in ordinary retail outlets.
For those reasons I hope that the Committee will agree that the Bill would be better without my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have listened carefully to my noble friend's reply and naturally I do not intend to press the amendment tonight. I should like to consider his reply. As I said in my opening remarks, there will be this anomaly in the difference between football pools and pools on other sports except that the only difference in the anomaly is that they will not be available for sale in shops. They will still presumably be available for sale by collectors going round houses or factories, as happens at the moment, so the concerns of my noble friend Lord Mackay will not be entirely satisfied. But that is what happens at the moment. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 126:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
Roll-over of prize money
(".—(1) Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (registered pool promoters) shall he amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 13 (requirements with which the pool betting business of a registered pool promoter must comply) for sub-paragraph (e) there shall be substituted—
"(e) the total amount payable by way of winnings shall, in the case of each competition, be calculated in accordance with paragraph 13A of this Schedule;".
(3) After paragraph 13 there shall be inserted—
"13A.—(1) In any competition the total amount payable by way of winnings shall be the aggregate of—

(a) the total amount of the stakes in respect of entries in the competition, less the relevant percentage of that total amount; and

(b) any amount that has been duly carried over to the competition from a previous competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule;

less any amount that falls to be carried over from the competition in accordance with any such provision.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph "relevant percentage" means such percentage as may be determined by the promoter, being—

(a) the same percentage in respect of all his competitions which depend on the same events or on events taking place on the same day; and

(b) a percentage which is determined and notified to the accountant before that day."

(4) In paragraph 14—

(a) after "paragraph 13(d) or (e)" there shall be inserted "or 13A", and

(b) for "paragraph 13(e)" there shall be substituted "paragraph 13A".

(5) After paragraph 14 there shall be inserted—
"14A.—(1) Subject to any directions under paragraph 14B of this Schedule, the rules applicable to any competition may provide that if none of the bets in the competition qualifies for, or for a share in, the first prize—

(a) the amount of that prize shall be carried over to the next relevant competition, or

(b) part of that amount shall be carried over to the next relevant competition and the balance shall be applied as mentioned in paragraph 14(1) (b) of this Schedule.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph—

(a) "the first prize" means the highest prize that can be won, having regard to the outcome of the events on wl'ich the competition depends (and not any higher prize that could have been won had the outcome of those events been different),

(b) "the next relevant competition" means the next competition to be held by the same registered pool promoter under the same rules within the fourteen days following the day on which the result of the competition is determined, and

(c) the reference in paragraph (b) to part of the amount referred to in paragraph (a) is to such proportion of that amount as may be specified in the rules or as may be determined by the promoter in accordance with the rules.

14B.—(1) The Secretary of State may direct that any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule—

(a) is not to have effect, or

(b) is to have effect subject to such limitations as are specified in the direction.

(2) The limitations that may be specified under sub-paragraph (1) (b) of this paragraph include—

(a) limitations as to the number of competitions from which amounts may be carried over, and

(b) limitations as to the period within which any such competitions may be held.

(3) Any directions under this paragraph shall be given in writing and may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions."
(6) In paragraph 15—

(a) after "paragraph 13(d) or (e)" there shall be inserted "or 13A", and

(b) for "paragraph 13(e)" there shall be substituted "paragraph 13A".

(7) In paragraph 20(1) (information relating to a competition which the promoter is required to include in a statement to the accountant) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

"(bb) the amount (if any) carried over to the competition from a previous competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule;

(bbb) the amount (if any) carried over from the competition in accordance with any such provision;".

(8) In paragraph 21 (statement as to commission and expenses which the promoter is required to send to every competitor in a competition)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) (a) for the words from "after deducting" to the end there shall be substituted "after making in respect of each of those competitions the deductions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1A) of this paragraph;", and

(b) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—

"(1A) In relation to any competition, the deductions referred to are—

(a) a deduction of the aggregate of the total amount payable by way of winnings in the competition and any amount carried over from the competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule, less any amount carried over to the competition in accordance with any such provision, and

(b) a deduction of the amount of pool betting duty payable in respect of the competition."

(9) In paragraph 23(1) (content of annual statement to be sent by registered pool promoter to accountant and registering authority) in paragraph (b) for the words from "after deducting" to the end there shall be substituted "after making in respect of each of those competitions the deductions mentioned in paragraph 21(1A) of this Schedule;".").
The noble Earl said: This new clause fulfils an undertaking which was given by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place to bring forward a government amendment which will afford the pools companies the opportunity to roll over prize money on terms similar to those which apply to the national lottery. The clause amends Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara had given notice of his intention to move, as amendments to Amendment No. 126, Amendments Nos. 126A to 126E:
Line 53, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty eight").
Line 55, after ("determined") insert ("or either of the following two such competitions (whether or not falling within that period)").
Line 59, at end insert:
("(3) If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State—

(a) that the effect of this paragraph or paragraph 13 above or both those paragraphs is to impose a prohibition or restriction on the carry over of prizes in a competition; and

(b) that that prohibition or restriction—

(i) does not apply to the carry over of prizes that can be won in a lottery forming part of the National Lottery, or

(ii) is more restrictive than the prohibitions and restrictions which apply by virtue of any enactment to the carry over of those prizes,

he shall by regulations make such modifications of this Schedule as he considers are necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing that that prohibition or

1621
restriction ceases to apply or, as the case may be, that it is no more restrictive than those prohibitions and restrictions.").
Line 70, at end insert:
("(2A) Where the Secretary of State gives a direction under this paragraph in respect of any provision in any rules applicable during any period to a competition promoted by a registered pool promoter, he shall also give directions to the same effect in respect of any similar provisions in any rules applicable to a competition promoted by another registered pool promoter in that period.
(2B) No direction may he given under this paragraph the effect of which is to impose a prohibition or limitation on the carry over of the whole or part of the amount of a prize in a competition unless a corresponding prohibition or limitation applies to the amount payable as the highest prize that can be won in a lottery forming part of the National Lottery.").
At end insert:
("(10) In section 7 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 (pool betting duty) after subsection (4) (which provides that the expenses and profits taxable under subsection (1) (b) of that section are to exclude expenses provided out of stake money) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) Where any amount carried over in accordance with paragraph 14A of Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 would not (apart from this subsection) be treated for the purposes of subsection (4) as provided for out of the stake money, it shall be so treated.".").
The noble Lord said: In view of the lateness of the hour I do not propose to move the amendments to my noble friend's new clause, but I shall wish to return to them at the next stage.
Baroness Mallalieu: In supporting these amendments there is a matter which I understand was raised by my noble friend Lord Howell at an earlier stage. It seems that by these amendments the pools promoters are receiving every consideration in this Bill. It is to be hoped that the Minister will perhaps be able to persuade them that their accounts, which I understand are still not published, and other matters, are placed in the public domain. It would be helpful if, in addition to having placed in the Library of this House, information about the effect of lotteries on charities and also on the Horserace Betting Levy Board, we could have similar information about the pools. It would seem, because of the consideration which they have received in relation to this Bill, the least that the pools promoters could do is to ensure that that information is provided not only to this Committee but also to the public.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness. I believe that the pools companies are themselves best placed to provide information on their income. We shall of course be more than happy if they volunteer to share such information with Members of this Chamber and of another place. I shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Baroness said.
[Amendments Nos. 126A to 126E, as amendments to Amendment No. 126, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 126 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Pools promoters' dividends]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 23, line 28, after ("by") insert ("section (Roll-over of prize money) (4) and").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 126. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 126F:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause.
("Announcement of game of skill or competition
.—(1) The codes drawn up under sections 9 and 93 of the Broadcasting Act, 1990 (which provide for the control of advertisements broadcast on television and on radio) shall require that any advertisement or announcement concerning a game of skill or other competition (not being a lottery) shall state the expected percentage return to participants, determined in accordance with (2) below, unless the value of the prizes offered varies in direct proportion to the number of participants, when
the ratio (P) (N) below shall be the actual value of the prizes offered per participant.
(2) The "expected percentage return" shall be determined from the formula:
(P/N) * (100/S)
where
P is the lower of the cost of the prize(s) in the game to the promoter or their retail value to the participants.
S is the cost (or expected average cost) to each participant or participatory in the game, including the costs of postal or telephone communication.
N is the expected number of participants in the game, which shall be the maximum allowed number of such participants unless there is no such maximum, when it shall be the greater of

(a) the number of participants in the most successful game run in the previous year by the promoters, or

(b) the number of participants in the most successful game promoted in the previous year on the television or radio station concerned, or

(c) 10,000.").

The noble Lord said: I shall return to this amendment at Report, but for the moment the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 126F not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 128:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Control of broadcast advertisements as respects lotteries and pool betting competitions
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the codes drawn up under sections 9 and 93 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (which provide for the control of advertisements broadcast on television and on radio) shall not discriminate between advertisements promoting activities falling within different paragraphs of subsection (3).
(2) The code may impose different conditions in relation to such advertisements if—

(a) the conditions imposed in relation to an advertisement for an activity falling within one of those paragraphs would be inappropriate in relation to an activity falling within another of those paragraphs; and

(b) conditions are also imposed in relation to advertisements for that other activity which are of a broadly similar commercial effect.

(3) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) a lottery forming part of the National Lottery for the purposes of Part I of this Act;

1623

(b) a lottery which is declared by section 3, 4 or 25(6) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 not to be unlawful;

(c) a society's lottery or local lottery within the meaning of section 5 or 6 of that Act; and

(d) a competition conducted as part of the pool betting business carried on by a registered pool promoter (within the meaning of section 4 of the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963) or by way of sponsored pool betting.").

The noble Lord said: We now turn to the issue of broadcasting advertising. I have already spoken today —as well as at Second Reading—on the pools industry's right to compete fairly and equally for its existing markets with the national lottery. The pools, as the Committee will be aware, have fought hard to ensure that, following the introduction of the national lottery, they have the necessary freedoms to operate in the market place and to compete effectively with the lottery for their existing clients.
I have tabled this amendment, similar to those tabled in another place, in the same spirit of free and fair competition. It is vital that the pools are given the same rights to market their products as will be given to the national lottery. These measures are necessary, as I said in moving my earlier amendment, to protect the jobs of pools employees as well as the contributions, which I referred to, for good causes. I am not ungrateful, and I welcome wholeheartedly the amendments that the Government have brought to the Bill to ensure that the pools are given a fair deal.
The ability to sell and to market pools coupons in shops properly was a welcome initial step forward. And the Government's new clause on roll-over to be debated in due course seeks to give equal treatment on roll-over for pools and lottery. Furthermore, the decision to reduce the minimum age of pools customers to 16—in line with that which the Government have told us will be applied to lottery customers—and to allow the pools to sponsor television and radio programmes, are additional signs that the pools case has hit home. We have, I feel, almost reached the stage where the pools and lottery can both look forward to the 21st century with confidence. With a few further amendments to the Bill —including the one on advertising, which I am putting forward today—the pools industry can continue in its role as a major employer in high unemployment areas across the United Kingdom. It can continue to make the contributions to which I have already referred.
We all appreciate that the power of advertising in the mass media is immense. To allow the lottery access to that power while denying it to the pools industry would be grossly unfair. Indeed, given the Government's decisions regarding roll-over, the sale of pools coupons in shops and the minimum age for pools customers, I find it difficult to imagine any basis on which they can sustain this position.
Giving the lottery a right to advertise on mass-audience media when its direct competitor is not given the same freedoms is tantamount to market rigging. It is, for instance, undeniable that the hype associated with a television draw leads to increased last-minute ticket sales. Indeed, I am told that it is possible with some on-line games to purchase tickets
1624
up to 10 minutes before the draw. Such a powerful marketing tool would give the national lottery a huge and unfair advantage over the pools.
Of course, I welcome and advocate fully the principles of free and fair competition. There is no reason why the national lottery should not try to convince people who play the pools to buy a lottery ticket. That is only right. What is not right is that the lottery should be allowed to advertise its product—a product which is so similar to that offered by the pools - on media from which the pools are excluded. I hope therefore that the Committee and my noble friend will feel able to accept the new clause. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Birkett: The amendment ought to have included something about bingo clubs. They cannot advertise the size of their prizes—except for the national game - and they cannot advertise where one can play. I do not expect an answer from the Government about bingo clubs tonight, but perhaps my noble friends will consider the matter and write to me about it.
Lord Aberdare: I warmly support my noble friend's amendment. I think that I should repeat the declaration of interest that I made on Second Reading as chairman of the Football Trust. We get our funds either directly or indirectly from the pools companies and are therefore vitally interested in fair competition between the pools and the national lottery. I shall make my remarks as quickly as I can because time is moving on and my noble friend has put the matter very succinctly.
I, too, am most surprised at the Government's refusal to allow the pools to advertise on television and radio. It is obvious that television will be used by the lottery companies - and used very effectively -while the pools companies will not be able in any way to refute what they may say or to make any impact at all on what is the most influential of all media.
Giving the lottery a monopoly will give it a massive competitive advantage over the pools. All along the Government have told us that they do not wish to impede the pools' progress or to damage them. However, not allowing them to advertise on television is, in gambling terms, to load the dice heavily in favour of the lottery. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take careful note of the amendment and possibly agree to it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As was the case with my noble friend's previous amendment, I would be happier if this amendment extended the level playing field argument to horse-racing. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will either resist the amendment or suggest that he will introduce a proper level playing field on advertising at a later stage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I rise briefly to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, which received knowledgeable support from his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.
The case for the amendment has been made. I think that it will provide a level playing field. The noble

1625
Lord, Lord Mackay, seems to have become the hit-man tonight for the horse-racing industry. In my opinion, that is one of the industries in this country which has always been able to look after itself. He would do better to produce something of his own instead of latching on to other noble Lords' amendments. The amendment will level the playing field., and I give it my support. This issue is too big for this time of night. We shall no doubt return to it at a later stage.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friends Lord Brabazon and Lord Aberdare want the football pools to be afforded the same opportunity to advertise on television and radio as is afforded to lotteries. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish hoped that I would resist the amendment unless it applied also to horses, in which case there would be a level playing field. I merely tell my noble friend that horses do not run on playing fields. There is a perfectly good playing field at the moment because the arrangements for the broadcast advertising of gambling are well established. Lotteries may advertise on commercial television and radio, first, because they are at the "soft" end of the gambling spectrum; and, secondly, because they are promoted primarily to benefit good causes. Betting and gaming, on the other hand, are promoted for commercial ends. and are therefore prohibited from advertising in the broadcast media. That is a good distinction. We do not believe that it is right to change that arrangement.
One of the reasons why we do not think it is right to do so is because the Rothschild Royal Commission on Gambling addressed that question. What it says still holds good today. In 1978, the report concluded:
"We approve of the IBA ban on the advertisement of pool betting, even though it is now possible, and under our proposals will remain so, to advertise lotteries, including a national lottery for good causes, on radio and television. Considered as forms of gambling, there are similarities between the pools and lotteries, but the latter can be mounted only for good causes while the former are run for private profit and this justifies the lotteries' advantage".
That is what we have followed. That diktat still holds good, and it holds good for this Bill too.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. Naturally, I do not accept his argument. If there is such a difference between the pools and a lottery, why have my noble friend and the Government conceded so many issues up until now? We are merely speaking of that level playing field. I say to my noble friend Lord Mackay that horse racing is a different kettle of fish altogether—if I may put it like that—because it is short odds gambling as opposed to the low stake long odds gambling of the pools and the future lottery. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 129:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Disapplication of s.I of Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976
. Section I of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (Illegality of Lotteries) shall cease to apply to the conduct of a football pool.").
The noble Lord said: This is the season of the year when Members of the Committee may expect to find in their junk mail a letter from a football pool promoter advising them that they are much too busy to take part in the football pools week by week. So, says the promoter, why not have a standing entry to last, intact and identical, for the whole 42 weeks of the football season? In that way, for a modest weekly contribution, they will have the weekly thrill that they may win a sizeable sum without any further trouble.
The difficulty is that the legality of the football pools depends upon their being regarded as a game of skill, which they are. That is made clear in a House of Lords case called Singette Ltd. and others v. Martin decided in 197O, reported in [1970] 3 All England Reports at page 938. I shall not go into the judgment.. I propose merely to quote about 12 words from the headnote of the case which states:
"Football pool betting scheme—Necessity for element of skill in forecasting to comply with statutory requirements".
The difficulty is that if you enter a standing entry for 42 weeks, after about the second week you have no idea which teams will be taking part in the matches opposite the places where you have made your marks on the coupon. Skill has obviously gone out of the window and you are taking part in a lottery. You probably know that you are taking part in a lottery. The promoter will certainly know that you are taking part in a lottery. This is a wide departure from the law and it brings the law into contempt.
I obtained permission from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to quote what he said about the rule of law. He said that the rule of law is really a gigantic confidence trick. It only works because people want it to work and because they believe in it. If the law is constantly flouted, as it is in this case. whether in relation to football pools, gambling, Sunday trading or anything else, that tends to bring the rule of law into disrepute. That is serious because nothing stands between us and anarchy except the rule of law.
Why has the law in this case been allowed to be flouted all these years? Is it something to do with the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is by far the biggest winner on the football pools? Every week the Chancellor has a magnificent win on every football pool. Perhaps Government thinking is: why disturb the bird which lays these marvellous golden eggs? It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
There are three things to be done about a law which is being flouted; you can enforce it, you can amend it or you can repeal it. The one thing which is inexcusable is to do nothing about it. This amendment seeks repeal, and I hope that it will be acceptable. What can it matter if a few people want to have a standing entry in a football pool throughout the season? It will not change the nature of the football pool at all. Every week the vast majority of punters will be exercising their usual skills to forecast the next. Saturday's matches. If a few people want a standing entry, why not allow them to have that without forcing them to break and to flout the law? I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and tidy up this very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I be,g to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, wants to remove the requirement that the football pools must take the form of a forecasting competition. The effect of such a change would be to alter the whole character of the football pools and, in effect, set them up as rival national lotteries. But whereas the national lottery will be promoted to benefit good causes, the lotteries run by Littlewoods, Vernon's, Zetters and so forth will be promoted for commercial gain.
The noble Lord said that the pools was a game of skill. I do not deny that there is not an inconsiderable element of chance in the football pools, but that is the nature of all betting. However, there is some skill and judgment; and the exercise of that must improve the chances of winning. That football pools may to some appear like a lottery is immaterial. The fact is that they are not lotteries. As the pools are a game of skill, they should be subject to a different regulatory regime from the national lottery and from other lotteries, which are of course a game of chance.
The pools companies have argued that they have no intention of denying those who want to exercise skill the opportunity to do so. That is as may be. But they also say that the character of the pools as a skill-based competition is an inconvenience. What they want is to market the pools not as a form of long-odds betting but as a lucky numbers game—a lottery. It is that proposition which we find difficult to accept.
I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment. The fact is that there is a difference between a game of chance and a game in which skill is involved. That is why the two forms of betting or gaming are covered by different regulatory regimes. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will agree that it would not be suitable to make that alteration in the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: How can it be a game of skill when you buy your weekly entry for 42 weeks or whatever it happens to be and you do not know which teams will be playing in the later weeks? You cannot, from your judgment, decide which team will beat which. How can that be a game of skill?
Earl Ferrers: The effect of the amendment would change the nature of the football pools. At present, they are a form of gambling in which skill is advocated. My noble friend is saying that if everyone fills in the same old form for 52 weeks each year there is no skill involved. My noble friend is trying to change the football pools into a lottery. I suggest that that is not the proper course to follow.
Lord Airedale: The gravamen of what I am saying is that the law is being flouted. I hope that the noble Earl will think about that. I will withdraw the amendment and consider carefully what the Minister said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 130:
1628
Page 23, line 40, after ("25") insert (", 26").
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move the amendment owing to the lateness of the hour. However, before we return to the Bill on Report perhaps my noble friend will reflect on whether or not Parliament should approve the powers exercisable by the Secretary of State under Clause 26.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 59 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 50, line 25, column 3, leave out from ("section") to end of line 27 and insert ("3(6) (d), the words from "acting" to "1979".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Commencement]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 24, line 22, at beginning insert:
("(1) Subject to subsection (2B) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 135. The purpose of these two amendments taken together is to bring into force, with effect from the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent, those aspects of the Bill which amend the provisions relating to existing lotteries governed by the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. The effect of that would be to enable charities and other voluntary groups to raise increased revenue from their own lotteries at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that the amendments are acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 132A and 134A. My first amendment tackles the issue of the sale of pools coupons in shops. As I have already made clear, I am very pleased that the Government saw fit early on in the passage of the Bill to make provision in the legislation for that already wide-spread practice. I seek to make sure that that very sensible decision, based on practicality rather than bureaucracy, is implemented as quickly as possible—to be precise, within one month of the passing of the Act.
It is the case that the legislation on the sale of pools coupons in shops was introduced because the letter of the law sat so uncomfortably with established practice. The Government recognise that many thousands of retail outlets across the country have been selling coupons for years. Consequently, they decided to adjust legislation to accommodate that reality.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office has indeed recognised that the decision to legalise the sale of pools coupons in shops is based entirely on the need to bring the law back into line with reality. During consideration of the Bill in Committee in another place he said:
"By authorising the delivery of completed coupons and stake money only, but not the paying out of prize money, the new clause does no more than legalise existing practice".

1629
As that is the case, there can surely be no reason for a time delay between Royal Assent and the legalisation of the existing practice. Many thousands of shopkeepers receive a considerable income from the sale of pools coupons, and it would be most unfair to them if they were to be denied this because of a delay in implementing what we must all recognise as a very sensible change in the law.
The second amendment simply makes the point that fair and level competition on roll-over should, in line with government commitments, be brought in as soon as the lottery comes into effect. I hope that my noble friend can give me some words of comfort on my two amendments.
Lord Aberdare: Again, I should like to support the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. I understand that there are about 20,000 retail outlets already selling such football pool coupons; and, indeed, they have been doing so for years. As soon as the practice is properly legalised, the better it will be. Therefore, there is no reason for a delay between Royal Assent and legalising the existing practice.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 133A in respect of which am slightly more impatient than my noble friend. However, the reasons behind the amendment are exactly as my noble friend gave; namely, that it seems only sensible if we are regularising the law that we should do so immediately we have the legislative opportunity. In addition, the proposed amendment would mean that Clause 52 would allow the football pools to negotiate with the betting shop industry to use betting shops as well as ordinary shops as an outlet.
Lord Birkett: I have tabled two amendments in the present group, Amendments Nos. 133 and 134. I put them forward only to prevent the football pools inventing a national lottery before the real national lottery is established. As I am quite sure that the Government do not want that to happen any more than I do, I shall not move my amendments.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 60 leaves the commencement date for the different provisions of the Bill to be determined by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for National Heritage. While I fully understand and sympathise with the thinking behind the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, moved, I am afraid to say that for practical reasons it simply will not be possible to bring Part III of the Bill into operation as quickly as the noble Baroness would like.
In particular, a period of time will be needed to enable possibly up to 1,000 societies to register with the Gaming Board under the new Schedule 1A to the 1976 Act, inserted by Schedule 7 to this Bill. In addition, there are a number of consequential changes that will need to be made to the lotteries regulations of 1977. We are required to consult the Gaming Board and local authority associations about such changes.
1630
We shall also want to hear the views of the promoters of society lotteries. Again, such consultations will take a little time.
I know that any delay in bringing Part III into force will come as a disappointment to a number or charities hoping to benefit from the new monetary limits. But I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the reasons for that and my assurance that we shall do all we can to keep the delay to an absolute minimum.
With regard to the commencement of the provisions in Part IV of the Bill which relate to the pools, we propose to adopt the middle way between the approaches suggested, on the one hand, by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett (who does not propose to move his amendments) and, on the other hand, by my noble friends Lord Brabazon and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is our intention to bring those provisions into force as soon as the national lottery is, as they say, "up and running".
My noble friends Lord Brabazon and Lord Mackay have suggested that there is no case for delay in commencement of Clause 52. I cannot agree. Bringing the provision into operation one month after Royal Assent, as proposed by my noble friends, would give the pools an unfair advantage over the lottery. The pools companies would be able to expand their customer base by advertising the coupon collection service available in newsagents and other shops before the national lottery was functioning and was in a position to compete. Therefore, I think that it would be unfair. I hope that my noble friends will agree not: to press their amendments.
Baroness Mallalieu: I confess that I am disappointed by the answer given by the noble Earl. He must he aware that many charities, especially large ones. are already registered with the Gaming Board. I find his answer incompatible—although, perhaps, he may be able to explain—with a Written Answer that he gave to my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, or 7th June of this year. My noble friend asked the Government:
"Whether they will provide an estimate of the number of charities that will need to de-register from local authorities and re-register with the Gaming Board in order to comply with the new provisions under the National Lottery etc Bill relating to society lotteries".
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, answered:
"Given the large increases in the threshold limits under the Bill, probably very few, if any".—[Official Report, 7/6/93; col. WA 44.]
I am not quite clear where the thousands that will cause the delay have arisen from. But given the lateness of the hour, clearly this matter cannot be taken further today and, with the leave of the Committee, I shall withdraw the amendment but may well wish to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Baroness does that, I hope I may answer her question. The Written Answer I gave referred to a net increase in board registrations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132A to 135A nor moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
In the Title:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 136:
Line 6, leave out from ("amend") to ("the") in line 8 and insert ("section 1 of the Revenue Act 1898 and the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976: to amend").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 111. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eleven o'clock.