|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
I venture to suggest to the House that the overall conclusion of the House of Commons All-Party National Heritage Committee, after prolonged consideration including the examination of witnesses, should be respected. Personally, with my Puritan background, I do not really like the idea that we now live in a society in which a national lottery is acceptable. But we do live in such a society. I know from my connection with the Theatres Trust that there is reason to commend the committee's summary to the House. It is quite brief and reads as follows:
I must now approach the end of my remarks as there is not much time left. I commend that report from the Select Committee. It makes impressive reading and its two pages of recommendations at the end are especially worthy of attention. I shall mention only two. First, I share the view that, with suitable safeguards, it is time to move cautiously into revenue funding in non-profit areas. I hope that, if he has the time, the noble Earl will comment on that point when he replies. I also support the proposal which was made on 4th June by the shadow national heritage secretary, Jack Cunningham, that Camelot shall be replaced by a non-profit-seeking body.
Although I appear to have a minute of my time left, another noble Lord may have it as, finally, I warmly congratulate the noble Earl on initiating this debate. I am sincere in saying that he has done the House a great service on which he is to be warmly congratulated. If there is anybody else I should congratulate whom I have not yet congratulated, I now proceed to congratulate him and sit down.
Lord Palumbo: My Lords, first, I must add my congratulations to those paid by previous noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, on a truly admirable maiden speech. I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, that the noble Lord will make frequent appearances in this Chamber, even if he should win the National Lottery. Secondly, I must express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Gowrie for initiating this debate. Thirdly, I must declare an interest. As chairman of the Serpentine Gallery, I represent a beneficiary of National Lottery moneys for the much-needed refurbishment of that Grade II listed building in Kensington Gardens, which attracts almost 400,000 visitors through its doors every year.
It is important that we should recognise that the definition of "heritage" is what has been, or will be, built. Therefore, it is not so much upon capital improvements to the existing fabric on which I wish to focus attention this afternoon, but rather upon commissions for new buildings to improve and enhance
We are particularly fortunate in this country to have available to us creative talent of the highest order--as good as, if not better than, any in the world--talent that is able to celebrate, to raise expectations and to lift up the spirits. God--or at any rate your Lordships--knows only too well how much we need that uplift in these uncertain times.
I cannot help feeling that the Georgians and the Victorians were, above all, confident societies; and that that confidence expressed itself tangibly and in large measure in the architecture of those times. The 19th century, for example, saw the construction from lottery moneys of the British Museum, the finest museum of its kind in the world. I cannot help feeling also that the greatest cultural glory of these islands, the cathedrals, were an expression of spiritual confidence. The spiritual confidence that eludes us today is a response--at any rate, in part--to the turmoil that we are currently experiencing as we approach the dawn of a new millennium. No wonder people are reaching out for certainty, order, stability, permanent values and some sort of return to a spiritual safeground as a counter-balancing force to the apparent chaos that surrounds them. That is precisely what the arts--and the first of the arts, architecture--can provide at its highest level. Which of us has not stood transfixed at one time or another before the wonders of Durham Cathedral or Chartres or the Parthenon or Ronchamps or the great Temple of Karnak? Of course, the secular is able to evoke as equally powerful a response as the religious--the common denominator being God-given talent that has the ability to spawn a great statement of the human spirit.
The application of lottery funds to existing buildings seeks to redress the neglect through woeful lack of funding in the past. Already a good start has been made with the designs of the architect Richard Rogers for the re-ordering of the South Bank Centre; with those of Norman Foster for the British Museum; with those of Michael and Patty Hopkins for the Royal Academy, and with those of Hertzog de Meuron for the Tate Gallery at Bankside.
In my opinion, it is nothing short of a tragedy that the coruscating brilliance of the design for a new opera house at Cardiff by the architect Zaha Hadid was rejected through loss of nerve and lack of confidence. I hope very much that the same fate will not befall the proposed extension to the Victoria and Albert Museum by the architect Daniel Liebeskind. Had the opera house at Cardiff been constructed, I am in no doubt that it would have done for that city what the Sydney Opera House, itself the recipient of lottery money, has done for Sydney; and it would have created the same image and perception both at home and in countries around the
Against that background, what do we find at home? We find that the Arts Council of England, one of the five distributing bodies, and itself the recipient of £5 million per week, has received only two major applications for lottery funding for new buildings, the larger of the two from the City of Salford for a new opera house and performing arts complex by Michael Wilford and Partners--a complex incidentally which will be the very reverse of elitist, conferring as it will wide-ranging benefits upon the community as a whole. That is just the sort of exemplary project application that the Arts Council of England should be considering on a regular basis. We must hope that where the City of Salford leads, others will follow.
Lord Palumbo: Yes, my Lords, my time is up. Perhaps I may close by saying that the objectives are worthy of your Lordships' consideration; that the creative process should be allowed to have its head and be allowed to flourish and that risks should be taken to ensure that 100 years hence our great-great-grandchildren, standing in the sunlight of other days, can smile benignly upon us for initiating in these times a series of commissions that not only transformed the environment, but set the agenda, the standards and the tone for the third millennium.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as has been demonstrated, it is extraordinarily difficult to debate this vast, complicated and enormously important subject with a seven-minute time limit. I begin by expressing the hope that there will be further opportunities for your Lordships' House, given its enormous assemblage of knowledge and talent, to debate the matter more fully. For my part, in the circumstances I shall simply put one or two questions to my noble friend in the hope that he will be able to deal with them in the time available to him. Does my noble friend believe that sometimes lottery awards are on the large size? Would it not be better if awards were sometimes less spectacular and grand and therefore there were more of them? It seems to me that part of the difficulty in working the system is that some of the awards have been very large and therefore limited in number. The development has been remarkable, but the prizes are very big and give rise to problems.
A separate issue was raised in yesterday's and today's press. Awards have been made to homosexual organisations. I do not wish to introduce prejudice, but a good many of your Lordships will feel that where one is concerned with distributing very large funds to help finance activities in this sphere it is a pity that in four cases (according to yesterday's press) awards have been made directly to organisations which believe in and advocate activities which are repulsive at any rate to a great majority of the population. Can my noble friend give an indication as to the Government's view of the future treatment of such applications?
A very big question was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. He asked about the effect of this system on ordinary charitable giving. Is it the fact that to some extent the existence of these awards has diminished the amount available from other sources, or is it the case--which would be very cheering--that these activities have produced a net increase in the level of charitable giving? This is an extremely important aspect of the matter. If the new system, which one wishes well, detracts from the size of other charitable activities, the enthusiasm which one has for it will tend to be diminished. I would be grateful if my noble friend could give an indication of the tendency in respect of other charitable giving. Has there or has there not been an increase in the totality of charitable gifts since the system came into being? I believe that the view that many people take on this question will be very much affected by that.
Finally, I put in a plea, as I have done more than once, that funds raised in this way, as in others, shall be made available for the repair of old churches. Churches, particularly small, old country ones, are supported by limited congregations with limited means. If this system can be adapted to help to repair these treasures of architecture and wonderful aspects of our civilisation, the enthusiasm for the system will be accentuated.
I would be most grateful if my noble friend would reply to those questions. Perhaps he would also comment on whether the size of some of the individual awards under this system is excessive and whether it may be more productive to have more awards of slightly lower amounts. I hope that those questions are clear and that my noble friend will give his habitually clear answer to them.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I supported the introduction of the National Lottery for exactly the reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her observations on the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. It has always seemed to me that no government we can possibly elect in this country can ever give the arts, sports and cultural institutions the support that they deserve.
As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said in his powerfully persuasive speech, the lottery has transformed the outlook for the arts and heritage world, as well as for sport. I believe that that is a matter for great congratulation. But in spite of the unexpectedly large sums now available to these causes, government support for them remains essential. Cultural institutions need stable and reliable core funding, and lotteries by their nature cannot be relied upon. As the noble Earl said, if people decide not to commit themselves to gambling, so be it. To a greater or lesser degree, that may well happen. That is why, in my view, lottery proceeds should never be used, as some commentators urge that they should be, to supplement public purposes like healthcare or education. Basically, these are government responsibilities.
I make the same point made by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in relation to an orchestra's running costs: one may give it a hall but not help with its running costs. I make that point in relation to the National Trust. My noble friend Lord Chorley, the present chairman of the trust, has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence this afternoon. Unusually among institutions, the trust is eligible to make application to all five lottery distributing bodies and has received offers of seven grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund. The trust is deeply appreciative of the helpful service that it has received in making its bids.
As an ex-chairman of the trust, I am familiar with its problems, but since my day they have intensified financially as the backlog of necessary repairs to historic properties has grown ever larger through lack of necessary funds. One may say that there was a miscalculation 20 or 30 years ago when many of these properties were taken on. The degree to which inflation has taken place was not then envisaged. However, many people besides the National Trust made that mistake.
The many millions now needed for each of three famous properties--I mention only three because they are probably the most important ones in serious need of funds--Petworth, Knowle and Hardwicke, are the source of deep concern to the trust. What is needed for such properties is a rolling, say 10-year, programme of work where the trust's funds and, I would hope, heritage lottery funds could work together in planned partnership. What more important work for the heritage can possibly be envisaged for heritage lottery funds to be applied to?
Yet under present guidelines it is easier to find money for a new project, such as an interpretation centre, than it is for the maintenance of the building itself. I am not speaking for the trust when I say that my enthusiasm for interpretation centres is strictly limited, but, even assuming their value, it is anomalous, to say the least, to spend money on interpreting buildings and collections which we cannot afford properly to maintain.
I understand that the Heritage Lottery Fund is acutely aware of the problem. I know that it uses what flexibility is allowed it and can in some cases fund endowment for certain purposes. What I want to urge upon the Government is that the anomaly to which I have referred be recognised, and it should be accepted that endowment is essential if heritage lottery money is to be put to the best use. The alternative of course is to contribute to core funding on an annual basis. If endowment is considered a wasteful way of applying money, annual funding is the only alternative, but it must be annual funding on a planned basis. If
Finally, a plea for the private owners of historic property: it is not right to exclude them as potential recipients of grant aid from lottery sources if proper access is provided for and proper standards of care are ensured. The private owner is an indispensable part of the process of preserving historic buildings for public enjoyment. There are of course difficulties in ensuring the permanence of such arrangements, but those difficulties are not insuperable.
I should like to add my own words to those of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and say that money should be made available to the historic churches of our country. There are over 9,000 pre-Reformation churches. They are badly in need of more help.
If these variations or extensions to the process of distributing lottery funds can be agreed upon, the lottery will have an even greater impact upon our national treasures than the important contribution it has already made.
Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hindlip on his most interesting speech, and say how much I, as others do, look forward to his contributions to your Lordships' debates in the future.
Perhaps I may declare an interest as chairman of Britain's oldest public art gallery (the Dulwich Picture Gallery) which is looking forward one day to receiving substantial sums from the lottery. I declare also my interest as chairman of the Royal Ballet governors, and therefore a particular interest in the development of Covent Garden and the benefits that that will bring to the Royal Ballet. Perhaps I may apologise in advance to the House for being unable to remain until the end of the debate owing, unfortunately, to a longstanding commitment in Oxford.
I shall start by thanking my noble friend Lord Gowrie for initiating today's debate. I support all he said with great enthusiasm, and I should like to pay tribute to the Arts Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund for the imaginative and wise use of lottery funds that they are making, particularly in terms of the spread, size--both large and small--and geography throughout the country.
Noble Lords might feel that such an opinion and enthusiasm are somewhat predictable, given the interests that I have declared, but I should like to justify my opinion and enthusiasm by putting the lottery grants now being made to the arts in some sort of historic and European context.
Looking back over the past 50 years, one sees that the record of post-war governments' investment in the nation's art is abysmal. Let us consider for a moment how few of the nation's great museums, art galleries,
Leaving aside the disastrous British Library project, I believe that there have been only two major new London arts buildings financed by government in the post-war period--the Festival Hall, which has already been referred to, in 1951, and the National Theatre which opened in 1976. An example of reluctance to invest in the arts is the story of the National Gallery. Having left the space beside that great institution empty for 40 years, the Government of the day then only favoured an extension that was half office and half gallery. The only criterion that seemed to matter was that it did not cost the Government a penny.
Such a mean-minded attitude towards investment in the arts is, I fear, typical of all governments over the past five decades. That is why my noble friend Lord Gowrie is right to be optimistic, for what we are seeing is, indeed, a cultural revolution--a complete and desperately needed change from the Philistine past, an escape from the dead hands of the Treasury.
Instead of Whitehall deciding, the distribution of these capital lottery funds is being decided by the heritage, arts, and sports bodies--committed, independent, knowledgeable, non-political, and practical people, giving their nation their valuable time and, in my humble opinion, doing a great job.
No doubt mistakes have been or will be made, but I feel sure that the quality of their decision making will be of a higher standard than had it been left to the Whitehall machine. Of course these are still early days, and time is needed for distributors to adjust fully to their huge tasks. Time is also needed for the public and the media to recognise the great benefits for the whole country that the lottery will create and which are on the way.
I shall turn for a moment to how we compare to Europe. The starting point so far as concerns London is that if we want our capital city to be one of Europe's greatest financial and business centres, then surely it should follow that London should aim to be one of Europe's greatest artistic centres of excellence, bringing also benefit to the rest of the country by raising artistic standards nationally. That is one measure of the importance of lottery funding.
We all know that we spend less on the arts as a proportion of total public expenditure than any European country except Ireland, with France and Germany currently spending approximately three times what we do. One should also recall the mega arts investments in both France and Germany. A recent example is of course the Bastille Opera House in Paris which cost the state £350 million. That compares with the generous lottery grant to the Royal Opera House of £78 million.
However critical one may be of the failure of governments in the past to recognise the capital needs of the arts, it is surely right to praise my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for bringing in the lottery, about which so much enthusiasm has been generated in our debate. The Prime Minister's wish that the young people of this country should have the finest
As I said in this House in April last year, lottery funds should be used to increase public accessibility--reducing seat prices, aiding art education and so on--and it is good news that that is now accepted. But such help is insignificant compared to the huge cuts that the Arts Council has suffered.
My final point is my most important. The future health of the arts in this country now depends on not allowing the lottery to absolve the Government of their long-standing responsibility to maintain their support for the Arts Council and on not allowing the principle of additionality to prevent extra funds from the lottery being allowed for revenue needs in the arts.
Lord Addington: My Lords, with six minutes and 59 seconds available it is difficult to give a resume of the lottery funding. I intend to confine my remarks to sports. Sports, and especially the Sports Council, have benefited greatly from the vast wedge of new money which they now receive. Most of that money has been spent on a variety of small community-based projects. I believe that 720 projects have received less than £100,000 in funding. Funding small projects is probably the way forward, with a few prestige projects at the higher end of the scale being in the forefront but becoming a diminishing part of the funding procedure.
There is a finite number of new buildings that we can use. If we continue to build using lottery money we will eventually have a sports hall on every corner. We must use the lottery funding for the maintenance of buildings and the repair of infrastructure and equipment. As was said by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, such funding is more difficult than creating enthusiasm for new projects. Anyone who has anything to do with charitable and sporting projects knows that. If someone is given a fundraising target they will achieve it. Everyone in fundraising departments knows that that is comparatively easy. It is not unusual that one-third of the cost of any project is required to maintain it on an annual basis. That is often the case as regards an old project which has a crumbling infrastructure. More lottery money must be used to fund existing projects because eventually we shall have sufficient facilities and only a limited need for new ones.
Furthermore, if we are to improve our sporting facilities we must consider the people involved and provide good training facilities and good advice on diet and medical issues. That requires people to meet other people and to give them advice, training, encouragement and a supportive background. We must also invest in the sportsmen themselves. Depending on the sport, international sportsmen in this country receive funding from a variety of sources. Professionals receive money from those who watch them play. Those in the amateur bracket--or, as is more common in many sports, the
It is not sufficient to build an academy for sport and to staff it. Scholarships and bursaries must be given to the athletes who take part. The current lottery set-up does not take that on board; it does not concentrate on individuals. The same is undoubtedly true as regards the arts. There is a pool of talent in the performing arts but if that is to be improved there must be investment in people.
Furthermore, one must be prepared to accept failure in some investments. For a sportsman or a dancer one trip or stumble can mean the end of a career and there is no use in complaining about that. We must be prepared to accept a degree of wastage in order to obtain the best. I suggest that that should be taken on board by all those involved. If not, we shall have wonderful theatres and sports halls with only about three people in them. It will be a total waste of time.
As regards the funding of individual projects, it is important to remember that if one appoints quangos one should listen to them. Unfortunately, we have heard a series of comments to the effect that certain projects were not liked. Using a sporting analogy, that is the same as a child playing in the street and saying, "It's my ball. I don't like the game anymore because I am losing. I am going to pick up my ball and go home". If we are not prepared to listen to such ruling bodies we should give the authority either to Parliament or to local authorities which are democratically elected. We must give the bodies a free hand because, just as we must be prepared to accept a degree of failure in the preparation of individuals, so we must be prepared to accept that people will make decisions that we do not like.
What is politically unacceptable to one group of people is not always politically unacceptable to another. In the future someone may not approve of contact sports--for instance, judo or rugby--and decide to stop them. Can your Lordships imagine the outcry? I suggest that we leave well enough alone and allow those who are appointed to run a project to do so. I shall conclude my remarks because I believe that we can retrieve some of the time that has been lost in the debate.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gowrie for initiating this interesting and important debate. As I believe most of your Lordships know, I am the chairman of the Football Trust. I wish to highlight the important relationship that exists between it and the Sports Council, which is one of the lottery's distributing bodies with which we have worked closely for many years.
That part of our funds and the way in which we use it is not relevant to today's debate because the Sports Council is specifically excluded from providing grants to professional clubs; that is left to the Football Trust. However, I wish to stress one important point for the future. Should the needs of spectator safety and comfort in sport in general in the country become eligible for lottery support, I hope that the Sports Council will wish to draw on the expertise and experience of the Football Trust and the Sports Grounds Initiative which it administers.
The trust's second source of income comes historically from what was once the Pool Promoters Association's spotting the ball competition. In the past the trust received approximately £14 million annually from that source of income. It allocated that partly to safety requirements at professional clubs which were not eligible for reduction in pool betting duty grants and, most importantly in my opinion, to helping the grassroots of the game. Unfortunately, the result of the National Lottery is that income from that source, which now comes from Littlewood's spot the ball competition, has been reduced from £14 million to £4.5 million. That is a serious reduction. Of what we have available, three-quarters must be allocated to safety and improvement work at professional clubs, because in 1990 we agreed with the Government to devote that amount to that purpose. That leaves us with just over £1 million in our budget for the 1996-97 financial year, for the many worthwhile and important projects which we have hitherto been supporting at grass-roots level. We have had to withdraw funding from many worthwhile schemes which were often run in collaboration with the Sports Council. Those include, for example, funding for local authorities, dual use of educational facilities, football in the community projects, boys clubs, YMCAs, the Divert Trust and other admirable amateur bodies which would normally be worthy of our support. We are now in a position of having to advise those bodies which received grants from us in the past to look for their assistance in the future to lottery money from the Sports Council .
I am happy to see that the Sports Council has so far awarded £220 million in grants and I understand that of that amount, some £25 million has been given to football projects in the United Kingdom. I am sure that that is good news. If we are to find the good players, which we know we need so desperately, at the top of the tree, it is essential that we nurture the roots.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for initiating this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it is impossible not to be impressed by the benefits brought by the National Lottery. I do not dispute that the National Lottery has brought many economic and social benefits, but in the euphoria that its supporters have managed to generate, we tend to lose sight of a number of detrimental consequences which I believe we ignore at our peril which I shall highlight briefly in my allotted time. It is clear, for example, that the effect on charities and voluntary organisations has been mixed: some may have gained, but a great many others, particularly those which depended for a large part of their income on small lotteries, have been hit hard.
We do not yet know what will be the social consequences of unleashing a dramatic stimulation of gambling demand. Fifty years of consensus, in which all parties agreed that the gambling industry should be tightly regulated, and people were not encouraged to gamble more than they could afford, have been swept away, with no proper regulatory machinery put in its place.
The role of Mr. Peter Davis as director of Oflot has been much discussed. Apart from the reservations about his fitness for office which have been widely talked about, it is obvious that there is an inherent contradiction in Oflot's terms of reference. On the one hand the director general is supposed to consider the national interest and only license games which do not encourage excessive play; but on the other hand, his job is to encourage Camelot to make as much money as possible, under the guise of maximising the return to "good causes". This has meant that he has the strongest interest in stifling competition, and we have the extraordinary situation whereby the operator, Camelot, effectively has a veto over the licensing of fresh games by competitors. Consequently no Section 6 licence for instant games has been granted to any organisation other than Camelot.
Now that the British lottery has established itself as the largest in the world, and is making profits of over £1 million a week, he has clearly met the second objective, but perhaps he has fallen down in his protection of the public interest. All that needs to be looked at urgently.
In that regard, I warmly welcome the assurance given by the Secretary of State for National Heritage that there will be no question of agreement being given to Camelot for running a second on-line midweek game. Mrs. Bottomley told the National Heritage Select Committee inquiry into the national lottery on 2nd April:
I turn now to two particular good causes, which far from benefiting from the National Lottery, have been hit extremely hard by it. I refer to the Football Trust and to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts to which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, alluded. The Football Trust has been around for more than 20 years. It was originally set up by the pools companies, Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters, to help British football with the implementation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act.
As your Lordships will be aware, we are now half way through the first week of the EURO 96 football championships--the greatest sporting event to come to this country since the World Cup 30 years ago. Had it not been for the Football Trust, this tournament would never have been awarded to England. The trust has been responsible for massive ground improvements at all eight stadia which are staging the matches. Perhaps the best compliment to the work of the Football Trust was paid by the chairman of the UEFA Stadia Committee, Mr. Ernie Walker, who said:
In addition to transforming the football grounds, the trust has made a huge contribution to providing the funds to tackle social disorder associated with football. For example, for the EURO' 96 tournament, the Football Trust paid £150,000 for the provision of eight new photophone stations for use by the police to catch known football hooligans and prevent them from gaining access to our football grounds, and a similar sum towards new closed circuit television cameras at Wembley. Both are measures for which the Home Secretary has been quick to claim the credit. It was indeed the trust--under the inspired chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare--that pioneered the introduction of CCTV at British football grounds. That is the measure regarded as the most important by far in the war against hooliganism.
Its main responsibility, however, is to provide the finance to enable smaller clubs to fulfil the requirements of the Taylor Report, notably new grounds, new stands, seating and roofing. None of that expenditure is eligible for assistance from the lottery.
Half way through the Taylor implementation timetable, grants totalling more than £140 million have been made to new stands and new grounds costing more than £437 million. Those completed included the award-winning new stadium in Huddersfield, and a host of other new grounds in places as far apart as Millwall and Middlesbrough, Northampton and Livingston. New stadia are now going up in Oxford, Sunderland, Bolton, Derby and Stoke-on-Trent.
In 1990, when work on implementing the Taylor Report began, the minimum cost over the agreed 10 year timescale was estimated at £600 million--£60 million a year. The trust would have met about a third of this bill, around £20 million a year. Since the lottery started in November 1994, the trust's income from the 1990 betting duty reduction has fallen by 45 per cent. and it looks as though it will be short of around £33 million from the sum needed to see the Taylor implementation completed, particularly in the lower divisions where the need is greatest. It is essential that the life of the betting duty reduction, which was introduced by the present Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer, is
The same applies to that second great good cause funded by the pools companies--the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. This phenomenally successful body, chaired by Sir Tim Rice, and graced by two distinguished members of your Lordships' House--the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and my noble friend Lord Attenborough--has in the first five years of its life awarded 12,335 grants to sport and 433 grants to physical recreation, totalling £188,848,078 and 7,271 grants to the arts, totalling £91,964,140. The foundation was established by the Pool Promoters Association in July 1991 and funds from the foundation have gone to such good causes as the Liverpool Social Partnership in Drugs Prevention, the Drumblade Junior Band and the Aylesford Rugby Football Club.
I suggest that these are compelling reasons why steps need to be taken now to remove the many inequalities in the competitive regime governing the operation of the pools and the lottery. It is not a question of loading the dice in favour of the pools, but of ensuring that the two can compete on fair terms, and each contribute to the welfare of our country.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I regret that I am unable to declare any interest today because, despite being a regular buyer of lottery tickets, I have failed miserably to gain one prize. My noble friend Lord Gowrie has given us the opportunity today to consider the lottery. The debate is extremely well timed, coming so soon after the publication of the National Heritage Select Committee report. Perhaps I may also congratulate my noble friend on his excellent maiden speech.
The National Lottery is a resounding success. We must be proud of its achievements, and ensure that it is as successful as it is now for the remainder of its licence period. Four out of five of its shareholders are British public companies and Camelot must be congratulated on its achievement. The lottery is the most efficient in the world and provides more to good causes than any other lottery in the world.
Perhaps I may start by looking at one of the issues which has concerned your Lordships' House--additionality. We have had a number of debates on the subject. The concern was always that the lottery money would allow the Treasury or, indeed, local authorities to cut their funding commitments. In fact what has happened, instead of a rather general principle of additionality, defined simply by saying that lottery funds should not support projects that were already in the planned budget--for example, money had been earmarked either by the Government or by government bodies--the distributing bodies seem to have been
Additionality is a concept that protects the heritage from cuts in government spending; that is all. It is not a concept to do the opposite--to cut lottery spending. You do not have to define every scenario; that is not necessary. Even the Permanent Secretary at the Department of National Heritage, the guardian of the concept of additionality as departmental accounting officer, pleaded at the Select Committee hearing for simplicity and urged distributors and recipients alike not to try to complicate the issue.
My plea is for flexibility, and that also goes for endowment funding and partnership funding. There was never any intention that endowment funding should only be used in rare cases. What is needed is some funding to be raised by the applicant, because it does show that the project has backing, but again I believe that it is a mistake to be too prescriptive. Sometimes 50 per cent. would be right, sometimes only 25 per cent. or 10 per cent. and, perhaps in some cases, as little as 2 per cent. Without proper endowment funding some projects will fail. We must ensure that they do not. The huge amount of money now coming through has simply put too much pressure on private funds that are able to back lottery applications. As the sums increase there will have to be more endowment funding, not less.
I would like to see the distributing bodies encouraging more projects. I know that they are barred by the Secretary of State from "soliciting", and I am not asking my two noble friends to stand on street corners--although, if they did, that might make them eligible for a grant from the charities board. However, I urge them to ensure that they get their message across, particularly to smaller bodies.
Those of us who were involved in bringing the lottery Act into being always recognised that we were gazing into a crystal ball. None of us knew what would happen once the money started rolling in. Who would put in applications for funding? Would there be enough applications or, indeed, enough funding? What types of people or organisations would apply, and what kind of projects would they be for? As a result, flexibility was built into the Act, so that changes can be made by secondary legislation.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund was appointed, as a distributor, to support the heritage. But I am afraid that the majority of the built heritage is missing out. As the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said, the private owner is not being helped. The reason for this is not the fault of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It is prevented by the National Heritage Act 1980 from funding private owners. In its early days, the fund had about £10 million a year to distribute.
I believe that one of the main ambitions of the lottery grants must be to restore and upgrade our inner cities and town centres. They are currently often excluded as, for example, many of our historic squares and streets are owned partly by local authorities, partly by the private sector and partly by heritage organisations. The resulting mix of ownership excludes them from funding.
What can we do about it? I believe that there is a simple solution. The Secretary of State could by order appoint English Heritage as a distributor alongside the fund. English Heritage is already its adviser on built heritage applications. It has the expertise and the staff to do the job. The issue, then, that must be addressed is how that can help the private owner while, importantly, protecting the public interest. The principle is that public money should not be used to support private gain.
English Heritage currently assists private owners through Section 3a grants under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953. Those conditions have protected the taxpayer since English Heritage was formed in 1984, and can be used in exactly the same way to protect lottery funds. So no charge of the use of public funds for private gain can be made. Of course, the principal conditions include means testing, there also has to be public access and, indeed, owners have to maintain their properties. But, most important of all, English Heritage assesses what would be the risk to Britain's heritage if the building were to be put on the market.
Grants in the past have enabled buildings, their surrounding land and often their contents--that is to say, the historic estate--to remain in private ownership, so that future maintenance is no charge on the state and the public can enjoy them. We must remember that the majority of the built heritage also includes very modest buildings--for example, terraced houses, cottages and often offices--but all of importance.
Lottery funds must relate to the needs of all the people, not just to museums and the arts elite. While on elitism, I must say how very depressed I am by some of the large applications from our major museums. I am, I am afraid, going to distress the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, whom I admire enormously, but I appalled by the idea of covering the British Museum with something that can only be described as an inflatable condom. I am equally appalled by an attempt by the V&A to ruin the last vestiges of symmetry of the Kensington museums by wanting to erect a building which one can only describe, I suppose, as cartoon-type geometry--a sort of "Bent Bugs Bunny Building Blocks". Faced with those applications, the case for the restoration of our existing glorious heritage becomes, I believe, unarguable.
I recognise that my proposal may be considered disruptive by the National Heritage Memorial Fund so ably run by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. I must assure the noble Lord that I have nothing but respect and admiration for the way that he has operated the fund within the difficult constraints of the National Heritage Act 1980. I want to make his life easier, not curtail his ambitions. But what matters most is that the money, at the moment, is not going to support all the built heritage.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for his initiative and prescience in introducing today's debate, I should also say that I enthusiastically agree with almost every word that he said. His few words in the area of economic theory momentarily tempted me to revive our debates of past years. But, even if there were time to pursue that, I should not want it to dilute my admiration for the noble Earl's other remarks.
I shall try to help your Lordships' House to catch up time by making a few very brief and, hence, disjointed points. I should, first, declare a number of pertinent interests as a director of English National Opera, a governor of the National Film and Television School and an adviser, director or shareholder of various film and cinema companies.
The funds available for distribution are as high as they are because of the success with which Camelot has implemented its franchise. With the benefit of hindsight perhaps a harder bargain could have been driven, but with the benefit of hindsight another franchise awarded by the Government--that for the Channel Tunnel--would perhaps never have been financed and completed.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, paid tribute to the Prime Minister for his success in setting up the lottery. I suspect that he may regret as much as I do that his right honourable friend (in abeyance), in the words of that politically correct and left-wing newspaper, the Evening Standard, has jerked the wrong knee in his intolerant and misguided remarks yesterday. I can understand why the previous Conservative director of communications-but-one resigned, citing the Government's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of its few victories such as the lottery.
I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo--and perhaps oppose the noble Viscount, Lord Astor--in his advocacy of ambitious, imaginative but always well controlled new buildings with which to go into the next millennium, in London as much as in Salford or Cardiff. I hope that, along with the proposed renovations such as those of the Royal Opera House, the Gallery on Bankside and even the South Bank Centre, London will see at least one significant and exciting new public building on a landmark site.
I also welcomed the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, about the issue of widening eligibility for lottery funds to current, not just, capital expenditure. So long as the principle of additionality can be enforced--the noble Earl's figures on the reduction in the Arts Council's grant-in-aid shows that this is a big "if"--it is
In passing I also wish to make one observation based on my experience as a director of English National Opera, which last year received a significant award from the Arts Council for a feasibility study in relation to its future needs and home. Even from a partisan point of view it was not immediately easy to feel comfortable with a seven-figure sum being devoted from the lottery to such an intangible purpose. One year on, with the study nearing completion, I am absolutely convinced that this expenditure will be paid back many times over in informing subsequent decisions. I hope it will be an encouragement to distributing bodies to continue such awards where appropriate.
Finally, I wish to add my support to the funding that the Arts Council lottery fund has been able to give the film industry. The wording of today's debate highlights the economic benefits of the work undertaken by the distributing bodies. I believe that there can be no area in which the direct economic benefits can be greater than in the film industry, if the support is wisely applied. I believe that the Arts Council is now considering proposals to move from financing single films to funding ongoing film business to help create mini studios. Although I suspect that this presents the council and its assessors with a smaller number of testing judgments rather than a larger number of merely difficult ones, I have no doubt that the economic and cultural prize of successfully implementing such a proposal could be substantial.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, first I wish to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech. We have been friends for many years and have been involved in the art world together in London and New York. I hope that now that he has "opened the bidding", as it were, he will speak frequently in this House.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, mentioned, there is the question of private owners. However, there will surely be other ways of getting round that matter. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the National Heritage Committee report was that private owners should be helped, subject of course to there being proper public benefit from that.
A recent initiative mentioned by the noble Lord is the urban parks theme for which £50 million is being earmarked. This is a wonderful initiative. It is the first time that the fund has, in a sense, sought applications in any way. Sadly, in this country public parks have a low priority in many town halls and government offices. But experience abroad has demonstrated that fine parks can help to create flourishing cities. Let us hope that this initiative will restore civic pride in our parks.
I shall try to give a sense of what is involved in that sort of distribution of money. It is not simply a question of signing a cheque. Such restorations take a great deal of time and work, including researching the parks' history, design, topography, hydrology, vegetation, wildlife, ecology, archaeology, current and potential use, management and, last but not least, security. These things will not happen overnight. However, it is exciting that the lottery will make all this possible over the next few years.
I wish to refer to one case which is soon to come before the Heritage Lottery Board. I hope this case will be followed in other parts of the country. One of the great benefits of the lottery is that people can think not only big but on a broad scale. The example to which I refer is the cathedral city of Ripon, sited close to where I live in the north east. The Ripon Improvement Trust, under the chairmanship of Michael Abrahams, worked out ways in which the city could be restored and re-invigorated. It looked critically at the river and its environs, the approaches to the city, the main city square, the disused and dilapidated buildings and the museums. This involved discussions with the county council, the borough council, the city council, a large public company, several private companies, museum trusts, charities, voluntary organisations and private individuals.
To create the will and the unity of purpose for a themed townscape application to the Heritage Lottery Fund is a remarkable achievement. As I said, the bid is just about to be submitted. The whole complicated package involving all these organisations will be presented as one bid, prepared by the borough council helped by a steering committee. Initially the Ripon Improvement Trust went to the Heritage Lottery Fund simply to have the ground rules explained and to discover what was and was not eligible to enable it to put together a bid that made sense.
The next task was to look carefully at the planning issues, as the members of the trust felt that it was not enough simply to restore streets and houses and to make things attractive but that there should also be quite
I conclude by mentioning two points made in the Select Committee report. The report calls for a more flexible attitude to partnership funding. In particular it makes a plea to respond to local conditions and needs. That is a very real point. It is easier to raise partnership funding in some areas than in others. The other point, which I mentioned earlier, concerns private individuals being able to benefit so long as there is some public good; and this must be a good idea.
The lottery has been going for only 18 months and we have heard about the enormous sums raised and distributed. Each year will generate more money for distribution. There is no question but that the social and economic benefits of the lottery are, happily, here to stay.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I talked to the late Lord Houghton many times about animal charities being excluded from lottery funds. Were he still with us, I suspect that he would be on his feet telling us that it was about time these charities should now be included, and I would have to say that I agree with him.
I am delighted that the lottery is such a success. So many good causes have benefited. Funding has also been expanded to include revenue expenditure, for example the film industry, which is very welcome. Even the Treasury, I suspect, has done rather well.
One group of charities has not benefited. The public believes that 20p in the pound is given to charity, but in reality the amount is only about 5.6p. Since the introduction of the lottery, fund-raising for many charities has dropped. For example, at the Riverdale Shopping Centre in Lewisham, money collected in July 1994 for the RSPCA came to just over £1,000 but in July 1995, at the same centre, the amount came only to £424. That is quite a drop. Since November 1994, the number of people buying animal charity raffle tickets has fallen from about 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. and street collections are down too. I do not think there is any doubt that the lottery has had quite an impact on the traditional methods of raising money for charity for this group. However, charities other than animal charities can benefit directly from the lottery and in many cases are more than able to make up any shortfall that they may have.
Animals play an enormous part in our lives. Most of us have grown up with them. There is no national health for animals. For those who are unable to pay for treatment from a veterinarian, charities like the Blue Cross, RSPCA and PDSA, to name but three, come to the rescue. They keep their doors open for 24 hours a day. No one is ever turned away and in many ways they act as a community centre too, particularly for the elderly. I certainly saw this when I visited the Blue
While some charities are able to benefit from our lottery, it seems unfair that there should be discrimination between one group and another. After all, both kinds fill an enormous need and relieve pressure on the public purse. Can I appeal to the Minister today in the hope that at some time in the near future our animal charities will also be able to benefit from what so far has been an extremely successful lottery?
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, it is likely that the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, and I, will be the only two speakers in the debate today to deal with the question of animals and animal charities; and I thank her for cajoling me to speak in this debate.
We have heard today that by any measure of performance the National Lottery must be considered an outstanding success, helping a range of institutions, large and small, in the media, the arts, sports and so on, all of which can be said to benefit the economic and spiritual aspects of life in this country.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, said, one area which has a direct relationship to the social and economic issues of the country has failed to convince the distributing body--the National Lottery Charities Board--that it is indeed of national importance, in particular in the social aspects of life. I refer to animal welfare, and the societies and charities which do such sterling work in supporting the animal welfare side of life in this country.
Indeed, I understand that the distribution board has previously resolved to give animal welfare a low priority. Animal welfare appears to have been linked with animal protection and this may well be why it is given such a low priority. But to categorise it under the rubric of "animal protection" would be wrong. Animal welfare embraces the companion animals, welfare of stray animals, supporting medical aid to animals owned by people who cannot afford veterinary fees, and so on. It also covers farm animals, horses, and wildlife.
With respect to companion animals, your Lordships may be aware that there are some 11 million dogs and cats in this country in about half of the 22 million households. They play an important role in the social life of the country.
The needs addressed by the animal welfare societies have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. Therefore I shall not go over them again. But although animals play an important role in our lives, there are obviously major problems with companion animals and others in our society which need attention. Those charities give attention to such problems.
I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to these issues. I repeat: it is not that those bodies should be given any priority. My plea is that their applications may be considered on the same basis as any other application. My plea is for an overall widening of the basis of consideration.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, fond as I am of animals, I wish to return to the built heritage and in particular the significant group who, I believe, have drawn the short straw in lottery heritage funding. I refer to the owners and managers of the privately owned historic houses and tourist attractions. My wife and I are among them. After 15 years in the front line of opening a house and garden to the public, I feel quite strongly that the Government need to pay more attention to that sector and to the smaller owner in particular.
The smaller attraction receives fewer than 10,000 visitors a year, which in our case works out as an average of about 40 or 50 on a sunny day and only three in the thick West Dorset sea mist. There is, of course, a Fawlty Towers element in this which provides constant amusement to others and rather less to those immediately involved. Small owners are quite literally running between the front-door to let one group into the house and the back-door to help another group find the nearest WC. They are struggling, often with diminishing energy and small amounts of capital to match public with private benefit.
But there is a more serious aspect. Fundamentally, the public enjoys the smaller attractions simply because they are on a human scale and they prefer the owners to be visible. They find a remarkable tranquillity there which is not always present in the well-known stately piles. And yet the irony is that the smaller owners are bound to be disadvantaged because, while in most cases they cannot command the same visitor numbers, they do not have the administration to obtain regular access to funds and their human and social costs are proportionately higher.
It is an acknowledged fact that many houses have suffered because their owners are not wealthy; they are people who may have inherited them and have put a lot of their energy and time into them. The question is not, can the nation afford country houses and gardens? But, can the nation afford to lose any more of those owners who are preserving the heritage by putting in their own free time and spare money, and often selling their possessions, to do so? Without the good will of private owners, how would the Government be able to support the other part of the heritage which is in private hands? The noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, in an excellent maiden speech, mentioned the in lieu arrangements, and I hope that they will be strengthened.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, there is a concern that the Government have not fully appreciated the position of the private owners. It is high time the rules were changed in their favour. It is no good Ministers saying that houses can be turned into charities. That is simply not feasible for the majority of owners. I know that the National Heritage Select Committee has made a very welcome start, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and other noble Lords have mentioned. That is thanks largely to the efforts of the Historic Houses Association. In supporting its recommendation to the Secretary of State--which is that the National Heritage Act 1980 be amended--I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments. I also submit that the case of the private owners deserves closer examination when the lottery bodies come to look at the matter.
I wish to make one final remark on charities. As the right reverend Prelate said, not all charities are enthusiastic about the lottery because of its adverse social effects. I can understand that and I hope that the Minister will give a full reply to the right reverend Prelate. However, there is a positive side, and as one concerned about awareness of world development issues, I was delighted to hear that the Development Education Association received a grant yesterday for its youth work. That is welcome compensation for a neglected area of education suffering from cuts in both the public and the private sector. I congratulate the Charities Board on its decision.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, it is illegal to promote a large lottery; that was under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. Under laws dating back to 1898, all lottery notices, correspondence, offers or tickets are judged as illegal imports and must be destroyed. That was the law in Britain until November 1994. It was clear that Britain was in danger of being swamped by lottery
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, proposed in your Lordships' House on 28th November 1990 that there should be a national lottery. There were fierce arguments for and against. We have heard a few of them again today. The history of national state lotteries goes back as far as Ancient Rome. In Britain, the first national lottery was run in 1569 and it became an annual event from the mid-18th century. Funds for the building of the British Museum were raised that way. It ceased in 1826 because there was widespread illegal betting on its outcome.
There can be no doubt now that the lottery figures have exceeded people's expectations and wildest dreams. It is the most successful lottery in the world. Great credit must be given to the Government and to the Prime Minister not only for having set it up but for having set it up so carefully and diligently. There were possible land-mines wherever they walked.
What were those possible land-mines? I detect two: first, the independent framework set up for choosing the company to run the lottery. The decision to award the lottery to Camelot was strongly underscored by the National Audit Office. What a huge success Camelot has made! It is not an easy job--lotteries are not always success stories. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Inglewood last week, the lottery organisation in Arizona had its licence withdrawn after six months, as the operation was in shambles. Camelot is still in competition with other forms of gambling so it is still at risk. No one is obliged to buy a lottery ticket. The driving force behind the lottery is the jackpot itself. Because of its great success, millions have benefited. Imagine a voluntary sum of money paid out, of which over 28 per cent. is given to good causes. That means £1,400 million, a vast sum that is not even distributed by the Government. I find it difficult to understand why people are still whingeing.
A second possible land-mine is that in the framework set up for distribution, there are five bodies. I shall mention only two in my short time: the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board. Sadly, we often make the mistake in this country of criticising success or quality or something that is superbly run. We hear murmurs of elitism. But, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, twice as many people went to the opera as watched the Football League Cup. More people go to the ballet than go to Rugby Union football. I am a tremendous supporter of sport and am pleased that one of the five bodies is the Sports Council Lottery Panel, described so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. However, more people go to museums and art galleries than watch sport.
If he will forgive me, I wish to add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, as my noble friend Lord Hindlip said so eloquently in his maiden speech. We hear today so many stories of sleaze and new restrictions
There are few areas that I should like to mention. One is a booklet that was produced by the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and which has not been mentioned, on advice on how to apply for funds. This was always the hardest information to obtain in the European Parliament. I am afraid that the EU is a maze of dreadful, complicated bureaucracy. I even agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on the subject.
Sadly, in the short time available, I cannot go into detail on different projects: the Royal Naval College at Greenwich; Somerset House, which was mentioned; and the lighting of outstanding buildings, which not only brings new beauty to so many but has an important social side in that it greatly reduces crime. Another aspect is computerisation for museums. This has an exciting future.
The National Lottery Charities Board, with another outstanding, dedicated chairman, Mr. David Sieff, announced its awards yesterday. There has been some criticism. I have to declare an interest, having been a member for many years of the British Red Cross Society. Over the past two years the society has raised more money than ever before. It is not alone among the charities.
At this late stage in the debate many points have been covered. However, I repeat one or two because I feel it necessary to emphasise them. The first is the possibility of diminishing Government responsibility, the dreaded additionality so clearly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Astor. Secondly, we must not forget the importance of people--a source of great wealth. And thirdly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, regarding historic houses and churches. I am grateful for the positive debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Gowrie.
I mentioned the terrible dangers, a few of which did not occur. Most well-organised charities have not suffered. People have not become addicted or insane. Why should people not be allowed to indulge in a harmless dream that is even doing good? We do not need less of it, as some noble Lords said, but a good deal more in this troubled world. Art, heritage, charity and sports are perhaps all that we have between us and barbarism. You do not need a degree in fine arts or to come from a privileged background to enjoy Mozart. All you need is a soul.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am one of the few people who voted against the lottery when the Bill came before this House. As an unreconstructed old Puritan, I still feel that it is a pity that we are encouraging more and more gambling, which is what we are doing. Seeing what the British people, untempted, will do in the way of gambling, there is no occasion to encourage them--they can do it very well without any further encouragement.
However, that said, when a charity with which I was connected received over £300,000, it did not even occur to me that we ought to send the money back. We are making extremely good use of it in terms of doing something about rural crime. Noble Lords will be the first to recognise that the needs of rural areas are frequently overlooked, and such areas are likely to benefit very considerably from the lottery. It is very difficult to get money for them from other sources and so money from the lottery is very welcome indeed.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we have to live in the real world. People are prepared to put up money to buy lottery tickets in the futile expectation that they will receive several million pounds. The odds against it are such that you would think that, even given the present state of arithmetical ability, most people would be able to work out that their chances are, to put it mildly, rather low. That being so, the money is coming in, and that I welcome.
I join with those who said that it is of the highest importance to guard against additionality. We all say that. But I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who will reply, what safeguards there are, if any, against additionality. Frankly, on the subject of additionality, those of us who have had dealings with the Treasury and the European Union do not trust the Government. I should like to know how we can be sure that the Government are not going to give less because the lottery gives more. That was not what was intended. It would be disastrous, and indeed a betrayal of the country, if that were to be so.
I also echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Addington about leaving the lottery boards to get on with the job, not telling them from outside what they ought or ought not to do. Anybody in the country, from the highest to the lowest (if one is still allowed to use that shorthand term) is free and entitled to criticise what the lottery boards do and how they distribute money. In relation to a recent outburst from Downing Street, I say only that I was very glad to see David Sieff's temperate but firm rejection of the criticism made. The money is not there for the Government to decide what should be done with it. It is handed over to separate boards to deal with it, and they should be left so to do. People can criticise as much as they like, but there must be no suggestion whatever that the Government will have any say in how the money is used. Inevitably, in the distribution of so much money there will on every occasion be ways in which it is used which will upset somebody. Let people complain as much as they like, but let them not interfere.
As I said, the moneys are extremely welcome. I very much support a remark that I believe was made by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. With so many speeches, it is not always easy to remember who said what, especially as some noble Lords repeated what others said--which I am also certainly doing. It is most welcome that money is going into sports grounds. I very successfully avoided organised games at school. I have always hated them. But if I had the power to do so I would pour money, for both social and economic reasons, into sports facilities in state schools. So many people of our age, and even those younger than some of us, forget how much aggression young males have to get rid of. If they cannot get rid of it in an organised and legal way, they will and do get rid of it in an unorganised and illegal way. It is just as simple as that. If young people cannot have proper training and proper opportunity to be violent in a limited fashion, they will be violent in a very unlimited fashion. There are those who are more knowledgeable about sport than I am, but I imagine that we shall never get a successful team in anything in this country until we spend more money on training youngsters in state schools. More money going in that direction would be very, very welcome.
For the time that remains I shall talk about money going to charities. They have taken the lion's share so far, and quite rightly. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, pointed out, charities receive only 5.6 per cent. of the money which goes to good causes; some 28 per cent. overall goes to good causes. It has been a theme this afternoon to praise--I do not say excessively, but without any undue control--what Camelot has done. Camelot has run a very successful lottery and we agree that, in a way, that is a good thing. But Camelot is getting a great deal of money from the lottery and surely more than 5.6 per cent. of the total money could go into charities. We ought to be pressing to look again at the amount of money going to Camelot and see whether more money cannot be siphoned to the charities which need it so badly.
There has been much discussion as to whether the charities are better or worse off as a result of the introduction of the lottery. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations--I am sure that almost every Member of your Lordships' House will have had its briefing and so I need only remind the House of what it says--the verdict seems to be that the big, well-known charities are not losing out. That has been confirmed by other speakers this evening. They are the kind of charities which benefit from planned giving and receive money from well-known trusts of companies. I gather that they are just as well off as ever they were. Those which are not so well off are the very small charities--the struggling little groups which are run locally and which depend on those eternal jumble sales and raffles and the odd garden party. But, those are a very important part of the charities and the social life of this country. They are particularly important because they are local community efforts in a world in which local communities are often threatened and being weakened. We do not want to see those small organisations lose out because of the success of the lottery grants.
When one looks at the way in which the National Lottery Charities Board has been distributing its money, I am grateful and glad to see that it has in fact distributed a great deal of it to just that kind of group. Some of the money has gone to charities which have income as low as £1,000 a year. Much of the money has gone to small community groups, trying to develop good schemes in local areas. That must be good. We must all be grateful for the sensitivity and perceptiveness with which the National Lottery Charities Board has identified particular unromantic, unspectacular and not well-known causes that have been able to benefit. It will undoubtedly make a great deal of difference to their survival in many cases. I hope that it can not only continue but can be intensified with an even higher proportion going to charities of that order.
I wish to make just one other point in relation to the National Lottery Charities Board. Every charitable organisation of which I have ever heard or with which I have been connected has always been in trouble about core funding. It is often not too difficult to raise money for a particular project. But nearly every charity finds it extraordinarily difficult to obtain the limited amount of core funding which is essential to keep the charity alive and not force it to spend all its time trying to raise the moneys without which it cannot have some kind of central administration, however modest, and therefore cannot exist. Those charities cannot spend all their time raising money for that purpose rather than getting on with the work for which they were brought into being.
I wonder whether the National Lottery Charities Board would give its mind to thinking how that very real problem of core funding for the smaller charities might be dealt with. There are a number of ways in which that might be helped. It is a central problem for all charities but in particular for the smaller ones. I very much wish that particular thought could be given to that very real problem. It would make a great deal of difference to the continuation and competence of a very important social and economic element in our society.
We on this side of the House support the lottery legislation and its rapid progress. We welcome its efficient and successful introduction--though to some of us it seems rather generously rewarded--and the impressive list of beneficiaries that the noble Earl recited. But before this mutual appreciation debate becomes too triumphal, I must point out that in fact over 90 per cent. of the awarded money has still not reached the successful applicants and is therefore still unspent. So, much of what noble Lords are speaking about and praising is still almost hypothetical. I must ask the Minister whether that reflects bottlenecks in the distribution mechanism and how long those blockages will continue. Again, I stress that our basic position is supportive. If the emphasis of what I shall say concerns reservations and proposed reforms, it is because we want the lottery to work better.
My first and central critical comment relates to the lack of any strategic vision at all for the arts or sports expenditure. We know that that is specifically excluded by the legislation, which presumably is a relief to the Department of National Heritage, since in fact there is little evidence that it has any strategic vision for the fields under its supervision. But the danger is that without strategic priorities the lottery may be spread thinly and piecemeal and be dissipated. I should like to see strategic priorities for the arts and for sport--emphasising, for instance, though others will have different views, new arts and sports, especially for the young; amateur rather than professional activities; access, especially for the disabled; and promoting music in schools by providing instruments, say; or promoting popular dance.
I turn from that general point to more specific issues, and I must immediately raise the question of matching funds. It is becoming very clear that the matching ratios--they differ for each distributary body--are probably too severe. It means that the applicants in most need have the least chance. Even some of the big flagship schemes may stumble when attempting to raise enormous matching money.
It is a particular problem for local authorities which play a very valuable role in co-ordinating local projects and where it is forecast that after the first flush of applications, many of which were already prepared, over half of all future projects will look to their local authority for matching funds. Yet those local authorities do not have the money to match. Specifically, their sources for lottery funding are the basic credit approvals--yet the Treasury this year stipulated and fixed that at zero; so there is nothing there--or usable capital receipts. But many, and especially the poorest areas, have no such capital receipts or potential for them. With others, there is a totally erratic distribution of resources. A striking example is the Scilly Isles, which, with £155,000 of available capital receipts, in fact has more than Newcastle, Sheffield, Birmingham, Gateshead and Bradford combined. So unless local authority funding in that area is alleviated--for instance, through supplementary credit approvals--many lottery projects will fail through lack of matching funding. I ask the Minister to comment on that central problem.
On the local dimension, I believe that we need to look for more devolution of some of the decision-making. I suggest the introduction of a network of local community chests under local community control to handle small grants, so that they do not go through the massive national bureaucracy.
On the delicate subject of additionality, the principle has already been severely breached and all the promises broken. Real expenditure on the arts has been declining since the lottery and nominal expenditure in the heritage area has been savagely cut.
Linking that to the question of grants from the revenue, I must warn the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and my noble friend Lord Chandos (who made a brilliant speech) that the revenue grants will further breach the additionality problem and lead to substitution. Block revenue grants will inevitably become part of the
The distribution bodies were set up in a great hurry--"on the hoof"--and we need to ask whether in practice they are sufficiently representative and accountable. There are bound to be controversial awards, such as today's from the Charities Board, and it is always better if those distributary bodies are seen to act transparently and accountably. Such decisions can then more easily be defended.
In relation to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, like others I particularly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and agree with everything he said. Despite the Churchill hiccup, which was one of presentation and not of substance, the NHMF is doing a good job. The plans he mentioned for Somerset House are particularly exciting and among the best to appear from any distributary body. I hope that after that the fund can tackle making Whitehall a heritage precinct and pedestrianising Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square. It will have our support for that. It is clear that the heritage remit is too narrow and we on this side support its widening.
We are sympathetic with what the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, said in regard to new technology. The question of intellectual property needs re-examining, and we must make sure that the fund can do whatever it wishes to do in that area. For instance, it is particularly sad that the Victoria County Histories, which was one of the marvellous products of a previous anniversary, cannot be helped. It falls in the gaps in between. I am unofficially informed that that is the case. I hope that it is not, but I fear that it is.
Turning to sport, I should like to praise the effective way in which the Sports Council administered the lottery funds. However, we still have some anxieties. It is clear that the richer and better organised sports are dominating application procedures. It would help if funds were allocated to the weaker governing bodies to help them in their applications.
In a similar vein, the smaller sports clubs suffer from the minimum size restrictions and we would advocate what we would call a small grants fast-track system. We need clarification--perhaps the Minister can help--on the distributary role, if any, of the new United Kingdom Sports Council. It could take a strategic overview and we should like to see it encouraged to do that. There is also the problem of children's play, which is excluded from the lottery remit; it does not come in anywhere. We believe that children's play, which was extremely important when I was on the Sports Council, should be brought back into the net.
In relation to sport, I am also particularly concerned, as have been other noble Lords, with the losers. The lottery money is not extra magic money; it is taken from elsewhere. Among the losers is the Football Trust. I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and my noble friend Lord Grantchester. Its income has been savaged by the lottery, as has that of the Foundation for Sports and Arts. And the Horserace Betting Levy Board's income was greatly damaged by the fall in betting, yet racing cannot apply for lottery funds. For reasons that escape me, the Sports Council does not recognise racing--one of the greatest of all sports--as a sport. That must be wrong. It means that racing cannot apply for funds to provide access for the disabled, as can any theatre. That is ludicrous. It is important to take drastic steps to repair the damage, especially to the pools groups and the levy board to make up for the damage done by the lottery.
The Millennium Commission appears to be in a mess. I hope it recovers. We may not have an exhibition for the millennium--perhaps the Government would like to delay its timing. Above all, it is important that the festival should provide a lasting monument of distinction and not some temporary and tacky theme park. Perhaps the Minister can say also what the Government are thinking of doing with that money when the Millennium Commission is no longer needed.
In conclusion, we welcome the lottery. We have comments to make on it. We should like to see more strategy, more public accountability, true additionality and visibility. The sustainability of the projects is very important. Finally, we must remember that it is the people's money and not the Exchequer's money. It should be seen to benefit the majority of people and respond to their issues of concern. I hope that the various refinements we have suggested will contribute to the even greater success of the lottery.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gowrie triggered a stimulating and worthwhile debate on the achievements of the National Lottery. We have heard a large number of distinguished contributions, not least that of my noble friend Lord Hindlip, who made a memorable maiden speech. I have no doubt that we shall hear more from him in the future on topics about which he clearly has considerable experience and expertise.
What is clear from the debate is what a resounding success the National Lottery is. When the Government took the decision to set up a lottery nobody could have or did anticipate the scale of that success or how it would become such a central part of our national life within such a short period. This debate is about success and some of the welcome problems, if that is not tautologist, that success can pose.
The National Lottery--in an initiative strongly supported by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister--was set up to provide money for good causes and has raised an amount significantly in excess of our and others' predictions. As the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, said, last Monday, only about a
As a social phenomenon, the lottery has captured the interest and enthusiasm of almost every household in the land. Camelot, the lottery operator, estimates that 30 million adults in the UK regularly play the lottery; and on double rollover weeks, 86 per cent. of adults take part in the jackpot game. That is a somewhat higher proportion of adults than voted in the last general election. Of course, your Lordships can participate in this exercise of personal decision-making, although I know of none of your Lordships who has won a significant prize. I look forward to the headlines in the tabloid newspapers if and when one does.
An innovation as successful as the National Lottery is bound to attract public and media attention and comment. In recent months, much of that comment has focused on the prize structure of the weekly draw game; and on the way in which Camelot works and the profits it makes.
The Government's objective in appointing a closely regulated private sector operator of the game was to ensure that the lottery was run efficiently and thus maximise the return to the good causes fund, subject of course to Oflot ensuring that the lottery is run with due propriety and that the interests of participants are protected. We believe that the profit motive is the most effective way of achieving this and our view has been borne out by Camelot's success to date. Indeed, I think some would say that if a similar approach had at the outset been adopted in respect of the British Library, it might have been a different story, and I might have answered a different Question from the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, earlier this afternoon.
The prize structure of the game was part of Camelot's winning bid to be the operator and was designed to produce the maximum possible level of public participation. It clearly meets the public's view of these matters. I would use this as evidence to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter as part of my response to some of the comments he made about the prizes. Camelot has been conspicuously successful. There has been some criticism of the size of the jackpot prizes, but it is worth remarking that most of the jackpot prizes are shared between syndicates or between more than one winning ticket, and anyway there is nothing wrong or immoral about scooping the jackpot.
The lottery has on occasions mistakenly been portrayed as a regressive tax. That view is incorrect on at least two counts. First, recent research by the Office of National Statistics shows that spending on the lottery rises with household income--in other words, it is not regressive. Secondly, the lottery is not a tax. The decision to play the lottery is entirely one for the
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester raised the important question of scratch cards and under age play. Section 12 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 makes it unlawful for retailers to sell lottery tickets to children under the age of 16, and the director general has a duty to ensure that Camelot puts sufficient controls in place to comply with this regulation. Of course, children should be protected. We believe that sufficient controls are in place. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has directed the Director General of the National Lottery not to license any game which does not allow for sufficient controls to prevent those who have not attained the age of 16 from participating in the National Lottery. I hope that provides some reassurance.
The right reverend Prelate also raised the question of the effect of the lottery on charitable giving, a matter raised by a number of other Members of your Lordships' House. On the evidence available, which is not conclusive, it appears that in general the amount of income collected by charities and foundations shows that the voluntary giving that they have received is holding up. A number of particular aspects of the overall picture have been alluded to, but it is certainly not the case that the catastrophic decline in voluntary contributions to charities which was anticipated in some quarters because of the advent of the lottery has materialised.
My noble friend Lord Aberdare and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised concerns about the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts suffering from the lottery's impact on the pools. As I am sure your Lordships will be aware, the Government have introduced a number of deregulatory measures to assist the pools industry, including the lifting of a ban on television and radio advertising and a reduction by 10 per cent. in pool betting duty. In addition, a further 0.5 per cent. cut in pool betting duty, worth of the order of £3 million a year to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, was agreed with the pools companies in the 1995 Budget.
The focus on Camelot and its profits, and on the direct economic effects of the lottery game, have perhaps overshadowed the great impact of the lottery in the wider world on the arts, sport, heritage and charity sectors, as my noble friend Lady Rawlings pointed out. The 11 lottery distributing bodies have, in just over a year, awarded more than £1.8 billion to more than 9,000 projects. As my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, many of these are small-scale, and they are no less valuable for that. If I may make a further comment to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about large awards, it is right, we believe, that large awards are made to national institutions and to Millennium
More than 7,700 awards of lottery funds--some 85 per cent. of the total number--have been to charitable and voluntary bodies spread right across the country. A number of speakers have referred to the amount of the total disbursements that have gone to charities. What in this context it is important to remember is that a very high proportion of the disbursements in all the categories have gone to charities. The benefit that the charitable sector as a whole has received from the lottery is far wider than simply those who may receive money from the good causes distribution body. What we are seeing is the lottery providing a massive new source of support for charities.
This success also shows just how much hard work so many people in the public, private and voluntary sectors have put in to the preparation of applications for lottery funds. They do this to enable things to happen which they care about strongly and which otherwise might never happen at all.
One of the Government's aims in setting up the lottery was, as has already been mentioned, to transform the capital infrastructure of our arts, sports and heritage sectors--using those words in a general sense. Thus far, the distributing bodies have made almost 4,500 awards to capital projects for a value of 1.5 billion. The benefit to the recipients, when the partnership funding is taken into account, will exceed £2 billion. It is not only the value of the investment which matters; so far as new buildings are concerned, we want them to be well designed so that in themselves the structures created have a stimulating and positive impact as well as having sound functional characteristics. As the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, pointed out, we have in this country today some of the world's most distinguished architects who are in a position to be able to contribute to this process.
To deliver the amount of money that is involved in these sectors in the space of just over a year is little short of revolution, stimulating both economic regeneration and investment in the environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, emphasised his New Labour credentials by pointing out that the money could not be spent until it was received. The position in respect of what he described as bottlenecks is that many of the projects we are talking about are long-term and will receive funds only as they spend the money that they need. Many also have been given awards on condition that they raise partnership funds. Since that is
|Next Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|