Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am certain that the noble Lord is correct when he says that. He always is. However, telling someone that you are going to behave badly does not make the behaviour better.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to behaving badly, but that is very different from what he said before about behaving shabbily and dishonourably. He and I disagree about whether that is behaving badly. I shall give my reasons for thinking that that is not behaving badly. However, he cannot legitimately claim that the behaviour is shabby or dishonourable. I fundamentally reject--

Lord Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord misses the point that the original idea of the lottery was to fund those projects that could not be funded, or had difficulty in being funded, other than through direct taxation. My noble friend was raising the point that the lottery was being abused to fund those projects that should be funded from other sources.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I regret giving way to the noble Lord. He was not in the Chamber when I first spoke to the order. He has seriously misunderstood what the Government are doing. Nevertheless, because it is my duty, I shall attempt to answer all the points raised.

I fundamentally reject the view that somehow the expenditure of lottery money on the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the millennium is good and that such expenditure on health, education and the environment is bad. I fundamentally reject the thinking behind that which is, and can only be, that expenditure on the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the millennium is

4 Feb 1999 : Column 1700

expenditure which would not have come out of core government expenditure and that expenditure on initiatives on health, education and the environment is expenditure that would have come out of core government expenditure.

I take what I believe to be the more liberal view that expenditure on the arts, sport, heritage and charities by government is an essential part of the range of activities that a government should support from their own resources--in other words, from taxpayers' money. Since the lottery was established, much more has been made possible by the availability of money for expanding activities, for funding new activities, and for the allocation of moneys in accordance with the principle of additionality. That is exactly the case--no noble Lord has challenged that--for the initiatives that we announced last year in health and education and for the new initiatives on health, education and the environment that I set out in only the broadest outline today, but which will come before your Lordships in the form of an order, before Easter, I hope.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, gave the example of cancer care. We have given a good deal of detail of what is proposed for the cancer care initiative. That is not medical expenditure on the treatment of cancer. It relates to local work, in conjunction with, and in addition to, the vast amounts of money spent by charities on cancer care to improve the quality of delivery of cancer care treatment. Indeed, if that were not money additional to government expenditure, because it is so comparable to charitable money, the noble Baroness would be accusing the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, for example, of putting money into projects which should be paid for by taxpayers. She is not doing that. It is clear that the combination of charitable and lottery money (in adding to core government expenditure on cancer care) is legitimate and in line with the original intention of those who set up the National Lottery.

There is nothing in the argument that the new opportunities fund--I shall not say "NOF" if the noble Baroness does not like it--is drawing down extra money in advance whereas others have to wait for private, matching funding. Last year the National Lottery Act specifically and deliberately relaxed some of the conditions that the distributing bodies had imposed on expenditure by demanding private, matching funding. There is no difficulty in any of the existing good causes drawing down the money that they need. I made that clear in my opening speech.

The noble Baroness certainly has a point about local authority expenditure on libraries. I hasten to assure her that my circular from my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, the leader of my council, assures me that any cuts will not affect the libraries in Haringey. I do not know about the others, but it is certainly true that libraries in many parts of the country are having difficulties. Of course, the expenditure on libraries from the new opportunities fund, particularly for IT and IT training in libraries, is additional to anything which had been considered by this Government or any previous governments.

4 Feb 1999 : Column 1701

I shall not trade definitions of "additionality". I have a whole series of them and I used them at excessive length when dealing with the National Lottery Bill. I believe that we have a more effective definition than the very narrow definitions which were used, for example, by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in the previous government.

The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said that the original five good causes have suffered. I thought that I had made it quite clear that the original five good causes have not only received as much as they expected to receive when the National Lottery was set up under the first National Lottery Act, but, as a result of what is proposed today, they are receiving more than they had expected then. We are able to set up the new opportunities fund and NESTA because it has been proved that there is more money coming into the good causes from the National Lottery. It is simply not true to say that they have suffered. I cut out that bit of my speech that set out the exact distribution to the millennium fund, but I can confirm that the £2 billion for the millennium fund, to which I referred, includes the money for the Dome. However, the great bulk of funding for the millennium is for projects around the country rather than for the dome itself.

My noble friend Lord Cocks made a valid point when he said that the National Lottery is paid for disproportionately by poorer people and that in the past

4 Feb 1999 : Column 1702

some of the National Lottery funds have gone to those who, as he put it, play the system. The National Lottery is not a tax and participation is voluntary. I do not know whether it consoles my noble friend to know that the average spend of household buying on on-line draw tickets twice a week is less than £6. Nevertheless, he has a valid point.

Let me give him an example of some of the ways in which poorer people do benefit from the existing good causes--from the grant of £70,000 to Relate, the former Marriage Guidance Council in Bristol. It has got this £70,000 for access deliberately for poorer people for marriage guidance counselling. I know that will not reassure him fully, but I thought that at least he would recognise the example that I gave.

I think I have already replied to the claims of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on additionality. It is simply not the case that the five original good causes were sacrosanct. What we have done is to extend the benefits of additional funding which has become available from the National Lottery to a wider range of good causes. I persist in the view, as do the Government, that these are both to the benefit of the British people as a whole and they escape the charges which have been made by noble Lords opposite. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

        House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.

4 Feb 1999 : Column 1701


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page