Orders of the Day — National Lottery Bill [Lords]

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 3:45 pm on 7 April 1998.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Chris Smith Mr Chris Smith Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media & Sport, The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 3:45, 7 April 1998

Just two minutes ago—I can quote it exactly—I said: Let me stress that, in seeking a not-for-profit operator and assessing any other proposals, the National Lottery Commission will have one overriding aim: to ensure that the lottery delivers the best possible return for the good causes. I cannot answer for the hon. Gentleman's hearing, but his intelligence seems to be lacking.

We have already made much progress in setting out the detail of the initiatives under the New Opportunities Fund that we want to undertake: £300 million will be available between now and 2001 to train teachers and librarians in the new information and communications technology so vital to our children's futures in the next millennium; £50 million of that will help to digitise learning materials for use in schools and libraries, to be available free through the national grid for learning and the public libraries network. There will be £400 million over the next five years for out-of-school activities, including child care. That will ensure new and exciting out-of-school opportunities in at least half our secondary schools and a quarter of primary schools. They might provide maths, language or homework clubs, or the chance to take up new sports, get involved with local drama groups or learn about the local environment.

There will be £300 million to establish a network of healthy living centres to provide practical help and advice on health, diet and fitness, on the high street or the local estate, accessible to at least 20 per cent. of the population. Only a few weeks ago, I visited a healthy living centre in Meadow Well on North Tyneside which is already helping to transform the confidence of which hard-pressed community, and the health and life expectations of many of its people. These initiatives command widespread public support, and will do much to help the lives of real people.

That is an ambitious programme for the New Opportunities Fund. To help it get off to a flying start we have established a shadow fund. The interim chief executive took up his post last week, and other key staff have been identified. We have also advertised for the chair and members of the fund. The response has been overwhelming: more than 300 expressions of interest, the vast majority from well-qualified, experienced people eager to be part of this new and exciting enterprise. One or two of the expressions of interest have come from former Tory Members of Parliament—so perhaps the well-qualified epithet needs to be revised in a few cases.

Unfortunately, I fear that the surviving Conservative Members have signally failed to share in the popular enthusiasm for the new good cause. They take every opportunity to tell the world that they do not like it. I am sure that we will hear the same old arguments from the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). He will say that we have ditched the additionality principle—indeed, we have already heard that—implying, strangely, that anything proposed in health or education must be funded by the taxpayer, while arts, sport, charities and the heritage have never ever been Government responsibilities. What nonsense.

The principle is clear. Lottery money must not replace Exchequer spending—it must add new value. We stand firm by that principle. Let us consider what the Conservatives would have done had they, by any remote chance, been re-elected on 1 May last year. On BBC's "Sport on Four" on 7 March this year, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon said: Had we won the last election, one of the things I wished to do, once the Lottery was established, was to see whether the resourcing was there to actually put sports teachers back into schools. Never mind the split infinitive; the Tories clearly were planning to use the lottery to pay for teachers' salaries—and they have the gall to criticise us for breaching the additionality principle.

I also anticipate that the right hon. Member for Horsham will continue his party's pointless nitpicking about the shadow accounts that we and lottery distributors have set up, in line with the changed percentages proposed by the Bill. These arrangements are simple to understand, and just plain common sense.