National Lottery Reform

John Penrose Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and to have the opportunity to address Members on what is, by any stretch of the imagination, a British success story—the national lottery. It was set up under the previous Conservative Government in 1994 and has continued ever since, with some ups and downs, to perform an extremely valued job across the country. It has become an integral part of Britain’s national life, principally because it gives so much to good causes. The figures are truly remarkable. Since it was set up 16 years ago, the national lottery has given more than £24 billion to good causes and funded more than 345,000 projects. I doubt that there is an MP in the current Parliament, and certainly in previous Parliaments, who could not tell stories of how those donations and projects have transformed the lives of some of their constituents. That is the case in every constituency across the country, from Lands End to John O’Groats. That is a measure of the national lottery’s success and of how it has worked its way into the marrow of the nation’s bones.

It is important to remember that one of the founding principles of the national lottery was additionality—an arcane piece of Whitehall jargon that means something very important. It means that national lottery funding for good causes needs to be in addition to core Government spending; it should not be used to subsidise or replace Government spending but should go to causes that would not otherwise receive funding. That is essential, because the four areas to which it gives money—heritage, sport, culture and what is now called the big society—all go to making the soul of the country work. They go to make Britain a better place to live in, rather than just somewhere that works okay. We would all be impoverished and diminished if the national lottery did not fund those things, and that is why it has become an accepted part of our national life. That demonstrates how successful and loved the national lottery and the projects that it funds have become.

Not to say that the national lottery is perfect. In the 16 years since it was set up, the world has moved on. It would be irresponsible for any Government, particularly a newly elected one, not to run over the figures with a slide rule and look at whether some things could be improved. The national lottery might be doing a vast amount right, much of which is tremendously valued, but can we give the tiller some small tweaks to improve what is already excellent?

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

My hon. Friend mentions small tweaks, and what immediately springs to my mind are the small charities in my constituency, many of which have difficulty planning, sometimes even for the next year, because of the short-term way in which decisions on lottery funding pan out. When charities are turned down for funding, the reasons for the decision often seem inexplicable. That is especially true for small charities, which sometimes suspect that there is an element of fashion in the funding decisions and conclude that they are not in fashion that year and so are left to go to the wall.

[John Penrose]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and make two points in response. First, it is always open to the distribution agents to award grants that can be disbursed over a period of time, sometimes several years, so that longer-term projects can be funded, and they do that already. It does not always happen that way, so I take her point. Also, the grant-giving bodies are sensibly at arm’s length from political interference, and I suspect that all Members, regardless of their party, would applaud the principle that we do not want any politicians to be able to direct or interfere with the grant-giving process, because that way lies political favouritism.

Secondly, if my hon. Friend feels that there are clear examples of funding being granted according to fashion and the direction of prevailing winds, I encourage her to write to me. I would take that evidence to the lottery distribution bodies, following the principle of an arm’s-length approach, to ensure that they are protecting themselves against such accusations so that a Minister, either me or my successors, does not take that up in the wrong way.

There are a number of things we can do to move the lottery on after 16 years. There is much to be applauded, valued, maintained and preserved in its current arrangements, but perhaps some things could be updated a little. The coalition Government have laid out a reasonable programme for that. For example, we want to examine the case for instituting a gross profits tax approach to the lottery. The lottery would be allowed to flex the rate at which it offers prizes and, in exchange, could drive up participation and ticket sales. The benefit would be that it could then win more money that could be disbursed to good causes. There are several important concerns about that proposal to be dealt with, not least the fact that the Treasury rightly wants to ensure that taxpayers, as well as good causes, are not disadvantaged. We have pledged to examine that, but good examples and interesting evidence from other gaming organisations indicate that that could be a productive and effective change, so we are looking at it seriously.

We want to reform the national lottery so that the arts, heritage and sport receive 20% of the money that goes to good causes, which was the original intention. In recent years, the funding for those areas has been cut, understandably, so that more can go to the Olympics, so their share is now down to 16.66%. We want to raise it to 20% again so that those important areas of our national life receive more of the cash. Given current projections, each of those areas would receive roughly £50 million a year extra as a result of that change. I am sure that Members from all parties would applaud that, as it clearly means that the benefits are being spread more widely.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the arts, and we have all heard of the cuts of up to 40% that are being planned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. To what extent does he expect that the increased lottery funding for the arts will simply replace grants withdrawn by DCMS?

[John Penrose]

As I have said, an important principle at the heart of the national lottery is additionality, which should already be enshrined in the grants that DCMS makes and that the relevant national lottery distributors make, so there should be a firewall between the two. We must ensure that any proposed changes do not breach that firewall or that principle. All Ministers in the Department are trying to ensure that we do not breach that principle as we grapple, along with Ministers in other Departments, with the problems of dealing with the spending review. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and others like him will scrutinise closely any announcements that are made to ensure that we are true to our word. I can assure him that we are being scrupulously careful about that.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The Minister will appreciate that he told only part of the story on moneys being transferred to the Olympics, because from the mid-1990s significant moneys went into the millennium fund, which came to an end shortly after the turn of the century. Many of us have been concerned for some time about the emergence of the Big Lottery Fund. There seems to be a grey area in relation to political interference and additionality, because moneys have been going into a range of projects related to health and education that many people feel should be, and probably in the past were, funded through general taxation. Will the Minister pledge to ensure that the Big Lottery Fund as it currently stands will be diminished, if not abolished, so that the arts, heritage and sport can be restored to their former glory?

[John Penrose]

I am afraid that I cannot pledge to abolish the Big Lottery Fund, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we share his concern about question marks over some of the donations from the Big Lottery Fund to individual projects in the past 10 years, and we are determined to ensure that such questions should not be asked in future. It is vital that Big continues to donate to the voluntary and community sector—it is an essential piece of the Government’s agenda for the big society, as a way of building up and maintaining the kind of voluntary and local community action that is central to the Government’s vision. Big, if managed properly and in the pure form we hope to get it in, has a tremendously important future. It will be refocused, sharpened and—if I may put it like that—purified, to match an agenda such as he has set out.

[Mr Field]

Without wishing to steal the Minister’s thunder, or get in the way of other contributions, might an element of rebranding be in the Government’s mind? Perhaps the Big Lottery Fund will be rebranded as a big society fund to achieve the very goals he mentioned.

[John Penrose]

I have to confess that we have not discussed the notion of the label on the door in any great detail so far. I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion and am sure that it will be taken on board.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to hear the Minister talking about the need for consistency and predictability. No one could argue with his wish to refresh the funds and to consider whether they are meeting the intended targets. However, the rebalancing of the arrangements for the Big Lottery Fund in particular would have an impact on the distribution of funds which, at the moment, is needs based, ensuring that funds go to individuals and communities in greatest need. Can he reassure us about that? Wales in particular has fears that a reduction in the amount of money going through the Big Lottery Fund would reduce the overall level going to Wales. It would be wonderful if the Minister could set that fear at rest.

[John Penrose]

I am delighted to be able to help the right hon. Gentleman out here, and I hope to provide the reassurance that he is seeking.

We will be phasing in the share changes. Currently, they start from a 16.66% share, and we will raise them to 20% each over the course of the next two years. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that in two years the Olympic top slice of lottery funding will come to an end. Therefore, although Big’s share will fall from 50% today to 40% in two years’ time, it will be a smaller slice of a much larger pie, because the Olympic funds will then be part of the whole. As a result, if he does the calculations, he should see a steady increase in cash terms for Big as well as for the other good causes. That is certainly shown by all the figures that I have seen. That outcome is important, which is why we have phased the changes to match the end of the Olympic funding.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Going back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), if arts bodies suffer a loss of grant as a consequence of the cuts by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will they be able to apply to the lottery to make good that loss?

[John Penrose]

The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that anyone is free to apply, but the real question is whether that application is successful. The test that I expect any lottery grant-giving operation would apply is whether the application matches its terms and conditions and fits the limitations that it can impose on funding. I expect that a fund would look very carefully at a straight one-for-one comparison, because it would be very concerned about breaching additionality. I know that lottery fund grant distributors are alive to that issue.

I go back to the response that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) a little while ago—because such operations are at arm’s length, it is rather difficult for any Minister to predict or suggest too strongly what they will do. The decision, after all, is theirs, but I imagine that they would look at such issues tremendously closely.

[Paul Farrelly]

The Big Lottery Fund is an important body. Many groups will take some comfort from the fact that the Government have no intention to abolish or substantially diminish it—turning it into a small society fund, in effect. In my constituency, the Big Lottery Fund has never been criticised for being politically correct or for making grants to bodies other than the thoroughly worth while. It has made grants of £3.8 million in my constituency since 2004.

One of my proudest moments in the previous Parliament was working with the lottery to get a £500,000 grant for the Peter Pan special needs nursery, which cares for profoundly disabled children from birth. The grant allows the nursery to operate comfortably for five years, giving it a secure future. I hope that such projects will continue to be funded and supported by the Big Lottery Fund, under whatever name the Government chooses in the future.

[John Penrose]

I completely agree with and accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the enormous amount of good will and love for how the lottery distributors have managed to fund all sorts of important good causes ever since the lottery began.

My party has criticised the fund in a small number of cases which, none the less, are important because of the risk to the reputation of the lottery. I do not want to go into huge detail now, unless pressed or provoked, but additionality was the issue on a number of occasions, potentially leaving the way open to damage of the lottery’s reputation. None of us would want that to be a possibility even. It is important for the lottery to be like Caesar’s wife and seen to be above reproach.

I will give way once more, but then I must make progress, because other people want to speak.

[Mr Field]

I would like to reiterate the sentiments of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)—he is right. A small number of individual cases have been the subject of a hue and cry in the tabloid press. I once shadowed this role, as the Minister knows, and the point that I would like to make is more philosophical—it is about additionality.

One concern, worthy though much of the work is, is that perhaps the work funded by the lottery is taken out of the health, education or other government budgets. At the outset, the very idea of the national lottery was to provide additional money in areas that would otherwise not qualify for taxpayers’ money, that are not run of the mill. Especially in such fraught economic times, which we have not seen in the past decade and a half, the danger remains that, however worthy many of the Big Lottery Fund’s projects might be, we are essentially denuding arts, sports and heritage projects of money that they would otherwise receive.

[John Penrose]

I completely take my hon. Friend’s point. I come back to the point that distributors such as the Heritage Lottery Fund—one of the lottery distributors that I am particularly involved with—are required at the end of every year to sign a piece of paper saying that they have satisfied the principles of additionality. The chief executive signs that piece of paper, taking personal responsibility. I am sure that that test will be applied to all the lottery distributors. Even if it was not part of the audit trail, if I may put it that way, I am sure that all hon. Members would want to make sure that it is maintained.

I want to move on quickly, because I am conscious of time and I want to leave time for other contributions.

I have mentioned a number of things that we would like to change, update and alter. I will mention one more. We want to ensure that the lottery distributors are a little more efficient and effective at distributing the cash at a lower cost. All of us are conscious that we live in an age of austerity. We all know that we are having to tighten our belts. We all know that we are all in this together—to coin a phrase—and we have to make sure that we are doing more with less. It is reasonable to ask the lottery distributors to ensure that they are as efficient as possible in distributing funds so that the largest possible proportion of the money reaches the good causes for which it is intended.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would the Minister agree that the Big Lottery Fund is currently the most efficient of the distributors?

[John Penrose]

I would love to agree with the hon. Lady, but the difficulty at the moment is that the data are extremely—

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[John Penrose]

I shall pick up where I left off when we vanished to do our democratic duty in the Lobby. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun had asked whether the Big Lottery Fund was the most efficient of the disbursing organisations. I was saying that nobody is sure which of them is the most efficient, mainly because they all illustrate their figures and report their numbers on slightly different bases. It is therefore difficult to ensure that we are comparing apples with apples when working out what their stated percentage of the funds disbursed is taken up in costs.

To reassure the hon. Lady, I have set the lottery disbursing organisations the challenge of agreeing a common set of reporting standards, so they all show their numbers in the same way, enabling us to make a direct comparison. We then need to ask whether those figures can be reduced and whether we can start to disburse the funds to good causes more efficiently and cheaply, to ensure that more money gets to the front line and reaches the people for whom it is intended.

There may be some legitimate reasons for variation: for example, at the moment the Olympic Lottery Distributor is one of the most efficient because it only has to distribute funds to one organisation, which is comparatively simple, administratively speaking—I am not saying that it is simple all round—whereas Big distributes to a very large number of smaller organisations. There may be legitimate reasons for differentials, but we need clear data, at least, telling us how to compare the distributors and that like-for-like comparisons are safe, and then we need to start looking for ways to reduce costs.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Many small community organisations applying for funding are frustrated because the system is bureaucratic and they require a huge amount of advice and support. Often, mentors are allocated to such organisations to assist them through the process. Are the Government considering simplifying the procedure, particularly for small voluntary organisations seeking support?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

The hon. Lady is right to mention that the administrative costs of disbursement do not fall only on the lottery distributors, although that is clearly part of the process; they also fall on applicants, and the more complicated the process, the larger the costs that fall on them. I expect lottery distributors that are trying to re-engineer their internal processes to make themselves more efficient to consider the entire system cost. I am waiting to see what they come back with and how they think they will react, but I suspect that they understand the importance of ensuring that more money gets to the front line, to be used in the right way. I am sure that they will want to do that without my telling them, because they will hear about it from the people they are disbursing the money to.

I hope that I have, through the highways and byways of various interventions and questions, illustrated some of my points. I hope that I have set out not only the Government’s position on the national lottery, which is that we can all be proud of it and we want to maintain, preserve and enhance it in future, but that there are a number of aspects that can and should be improved. The world has moved on in the 15 or 16 years since the lottery was set up and certain developments are needed. I look forward to hearing comments from hon. Members from all parties and, given the chance, to responding to them.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I declare that I am a trustee of the Barony ‘A’ Frame Trust, which has had substantial funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund. I also stand here as a an arts graduate from the Glasgow school of art and Goldsmiths, university of London, so far be it from me ever to suggest that money is not well invested in the arts. I have also been an active supporter of a number of heritage projects in my area and across Scotland, and I stress my support for them. However, I am concerned about the proposals outlined by the Government, because there are general implications for some of our more disadvantaged communities, which, although they were not given special treatment under the previous arrangements, were at least recognised. I also want to raise interests specifically relating to Scotland.

First, let me pick up on the question about efficiency. As the Minister recognised, it is possible in theory for an organisation that simply disburses funds to a small number of large projects to be relatively efficient. He rightly accepted—I was glad to hear it—that the Big Lottery Fund, which deals with a large number of small grants and assesses many different proposals, might not, on the face of it, look so efficient. I understand, however, the Big Lottery Fund itself believes that it has got efficiency down to a fine art and that it is able get the best value for money.

Another important point, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), is that many of the small organisations that apply for funds require support in capacity building; they do not have the infrastructure to produce business plans or elaborate proposals to sustain themselves as organisations over months and sometimes years in order to secure funding, given that many use a cocktail of funding from different sources. It is therefore important to recognise that the Big Lottery Fund’s overheads are not simply about administrative costs, but about capacity building and support costs. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to that, and I hope that he can give further reassurance that that will be taken into account.

I mentioned that I share some of the general concerns about the Big Lottery Fund. I am particularly worried about the aspect of additionality. We have not yet heard fully how it will be assessed. I have heard people express concerns about how cuts in departmental budgets for arts and heritage projects and moving Big Lottery Fund money into such projects will inevitably result in things that were previously funded by the Government taking lottery money away from smaller organisations that would otherwise have benefited.

The Minister talked about projects in the grey areas that should perhaps not have been funded. I am not entirely persuaded that we had answers on that, either. At a time when local government and other parts of the public sector are feeling the squeeze, I am not sure that the Minister has given a compelling explanation of how local authorities will be able to fill the gaps that will be created if the lottery funding stream is taken away from local communities.

I am particularly concerned about schools and other parent-led organisations in local communities. On the face of it, an application from a school might look like something that the local authority should deal with, but it might in fact be a matter of a group of parents working with a school to provide activities after school—after-school clubs are an obvious example, but I have also seen eco-garden projects in schools in my constituency, which are linked to improving the local environment. Other projects have provided children and young people with sporting opportunities which they might not otherwise have had. That has not been fully addressed.

There is a particular issue in Scotland. Scotland receives 11.5% of the total Big income in the UK. That is because the income is apportioned by applying the Barnett formula plus a weighting for deprivation to recognise the particular circumstances in Scotland, but it is my understanding that none of the other lottery distributors reflects that. Any change in the shares is therefore likely to result in an overall net loss of available lottery funding in Scotland, which is a concern for me. I appreciate that the Minister has tried to give me some assurance on that, but can he guarantee that Scotland will not lose out as a result of the changes, when it is secure under the current regime?

[John Penrose]

I will not interrupt many speeches, but the hon. Lady asks a direct question and I thought that I might be able help. As I am sure she would expect, we have done some calculations. Last year, the Big Lottery Fund’s total income was £564 million, so 92%—the percentage that Big says it gave to voluntary and community services last year—works out at £520 million. With a 40% share, the projection for Big for 2013-14—after the Olympic transfers end—is £630 million. We are therefore comparing £520 million with £630 million, so the hon. Lady will see that there is a large increase UK-wide. If we apply that to Scotland, the figures for Big come out at £54 million beforehand and £65 million afterwards. The result should therefore be a net cash increase, which I hope reassures the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I am delighted to respond to the various points that have been made by Members from all parties during this debate. There is a very pleasing unanimity about the importance of the national lottery, which is not exactly unexpected but none the less welcome. I think that there is also a general acceptance that the national lottery has become a tremendously important part of our national life. While there may be some important questions to be asked and some important quibbles here and there, there is a vast fund of good will and cross-party consensus on the importance of the national lottery carrying on and continuing to do good work.

I will try to collect the various points that hon. Members have made into a series of themes. If I miss anybody out, I apologise and perhaps they can sort of grab me after the debate. However, I will try to ensure that I have picked up every point that was made.

A number of Members asked whether the commitment to focus the Big Lottery Fund even more closely on operating through the voluntary and community sector rather than statutory bodies would have an unintended negative effect. Looking around Westminster Hall, I think that that point was made by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert), the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) made it too.

In response to all those Members, I will say that the reasoning behind that commitment is purely an attempt to prevent any questions being raised about a breach of the principle of additionality. It is an attempt to ensure that there can be no question that money goes to statutory bodies as a way of getting round the principle of additionality. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth who said that it was terribly easy for that appearance to be created, which is something that we must watch out for at all times.

Therefore, I think that we are all agreed on the importance of the principle of additionality. I also think that it is right to say, as the shadow Secretary of State said, that the Big Lottery Fund has been tending towards that direction anyway. It used to be the case that 80% of its donations went to the voluntary and community sector, but that share has recently gone up to 92%, and we are encouraging the fund to make the percentage go even higher.

However, in response to a point that was raised by a number of people, I must say that we have no intention of phrasing the revised policy direction that we are aiming to come up with so narrowly that we end up with the unintended consequence that, if a voluntary and community sector organisation is partnering the local library or whatever local organisation it may be, it would be discounted. That consequence would clearly be counter-productive and unintended, and it is not what we want to achieve. There needs to be enough flexibility for a balance to be struck.

[Cathy Jamieson]

For the record, and for the benefit of those of us who have represented Scottish interests in Westminster Hall today, will the Minister tell us whether the policy direction that he will announce for the Big Lottery Fund will be for England? What discussions has he already had with the Scottish Government in relation to this issue?

[John Penrose]

I thank the hon. Lady for drawing everybody’s attention to that issue. She is absolutely right to point out that any such policy direction would be purely for England; it would then be up to the devolved Administrations to decide whether they wished to follow or not. Alternatively, if they wanted to change or flex the policy direction, it would be entirely up to them to decide how they wanted to react. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady’s question. It is important that we strike the right balance and are flexible on that issue, because an overly rigid approach could create some unintended consequences.

I also want to pick up briefly on one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, who is standing in today very nobly for my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster). He asked how we were getting on with the gross profit tax; incidentally, that is an answer to the shadow Secretary of State’s question about whether there was a policy that the Liberal Democrats as well as the Conservatives had backed. The answer to my hon. Friend’s question about the gross profit tax is that discussions with the Treasury are already under way. I am afraid that the timetable is still slightly elastic, because the Treasury is in charge of it, since it is a tax rather than something that is directly the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. However, as I say, discussions are happening, officials are already involved and I have spoken to the relevant Minister at the Treasury about it already.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I asked the Minister whether any discrete Liberal Democrat policies that were not shared by the Conservatives before the election were now Government policy.

[John Penrose]

I am afraid that I shall have to rely on my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, who is speaking for the Liberal Democrats today, to answer that question, as I am not quite such an expert on their election manifesto as I am sure he is. I am certain that he will be willing to be buttonholed by the right hon. Gentleman after the debate and will put him right, as necessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay asked about the speed at which the spending cuts would be made. He and a number of other Members also asked whether we would try to be flexible in making those cuts. In fact, the right hon. Member for Exeter was also very concerned—to put it charitably—about the extent of cuts. We have four years in which to achieve those cuts and therefore we will carefully phase any reductions that have to be made. None of us here like the notion that there have to be cuts at all; sadly, they are a necessary thing rather than something that anyone is looking forward to implementing. But we will try to ensure that we phase them over that four-year period in the most intelligent way possible, to minimise the effect on the front line and to ensure that adjustments that have to be made can be made during that period.

In response to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Exeter about the need for these cuts, I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay. I am afraid that it is true that these cuts are not something that anybody wants to implement; none the less, they are the result of the previous Government’s actions. The reason why they have to be made is not that anybody wants to make them but simply because of what is happening to countries such as Greece. If we look at those countries, we can see that if a country’s public sector finances are not in balance, the international capital markets and the rest of the world will form their own view about its creditworthiness. We are borrowing a vast amount from international creditors at the moment so we need to ensure that we are a credible borrower in their eyes; otherwise, we will not be able to carry on doing anything that we want to do. I am afraid that that credibility has been gravely put in peril, and that is why we have to bring the national accounts back into balance as fast as is reasonably possible. However, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay that we need to do that with sensitivity and care and attempt to minimise the impact on the front line as far as possible.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth made some points about the needs-based approach, which were picked up by a number of other Members. I think that he was suggesting that he would prefer to see the Big Lottery Fund contribution maintained at 50% rather than at 40%, although as a result of our creating a smaller slice of a bigger pie the total cash amount will go up; I hope that I also answered his question about the impact on both Scotland and Wales. I think that his argument was that he would prefer that contribution to remain as a higher percentage as well as that higher total cash amount, because he felt that that would maximise the amount of money being given on a needs-based approach.

To reassure the right hon. Gentleman—

[Cathy Jamieson]

rose—

[John Penrose]

I just want to finish this point and then I will be happy to give way again.

I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman and I will necessarily agree on that basic point of principle about the percentage that should go to the Big Lottery Fund, but I just wanted to reassure him that the situation was perhaps not quite as bad as he feared. Partly, that is because, as I said, the total amount of cash being distributed by the Big Lottery Fund should rise in both Scotland and Wales, along the lines that I was talking about earlier. In addition, a large proportion of money is distributed by other lottery distributors, which also goes to the voluntary and community sector. For example, 48% of the money from the Heritage Lottery Fund has gone to voluntary and community sector organisations and indeed 81% of the projects that the Heritage Lottery Fund supports have been led by the voluntary and community sector. So I hope that that helps him a little, even if it does not satisfy him fully.

[Alun Michael]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing my point. I was not necessarily arguing that there should be no change in the percentage. I was saying that there is more than one way to achieve a needs-based approach to allocation. One possible way is to look at the other funds, because of course the sort of communities that I am seeking to protect are very interested in issues such as sport, art and heritage. I had hoped that the Minister would reassure me—I think that he is part way to doing so—that that needs-based approach would perhaps be applied more widely and not just in the crude overall percentages.

[John Penrose]

I am not sure that I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman fully on that point. However, I hope that the figures that I have just quoted about other lottery distributors that give money to voluntary and community sector organisations in a way that is perhaps not terribly well publicised show that money is already going to sporting organisations—he gave the example of sport—in needy constituencies such as his.

[Cathy Jamieson]

For my information, are the figures that the Minister has just given based on an assumption that lottery ticket sales will rise and, if so, by how much?

[John Penrose]

The figures are based on existing public figures for projected lottery ticket sales over the next couple of years. They are available on the website, so the hon. Lady can check them when she likes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked about the effect of the national lottery on problem gambling. A large body of work has been done on problem gambling, as I am sure he is aware. I reassure him that if he speaks to the Gambling Commission, or indeed the National Lottery Commission, they will tell him what most of those who have made representations to me say: the national lottery is one of the least problematic kinds of gambling in this country. Large numbers of people play it, but the penetration of problem gambling among them is comparatively low. There are many other types of gaming that are of more concern than the national lottery. He also asked me to confirm whether non-charities would still qualify for Big funding. They do now, and they will continue to do so. I am happy to reassure him about that.

Several hon. Members discussed the cost of making applications to Big, particularly for small organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay asked specifically whether it would not be good for hand-holding to fall outside the definition of administrative costs involved in Big’s distribution. I have two responses to that. First, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, it is important to realise that there may be good reasons why the 5% target that the Secretary of State asked me about might be slightly less applicable to Big. I want to ensure that we have common measurement criteria before we start applying anything in a mechanistic way. We will have to wait and see what happens, but there might be a legitimate reason for an in-built additional cost when dealing with small organisations. I want to benchmark that cost against the cost of doing a similar job in other countries in order to check it.

Secondly, it must surely be better for us to reduce the costs of hand-holding in the first place—to reduce the necessity for it by reducing the complexity of the application process, particularly for small voluntary and community sector organisations—than to fund those additional costs. That is where I would start. As hon. Members commented in responses to interventions by the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), it is far more important to understand that costs are incurred not only by distributors; complexity also creates knock-on costs for applicants. It is vital that we reduce the total system costs to all parties. That is probably the biggest and most immediate single thing that we can do.

I hope that I have responded to everybody. As a final remark, the shadow Secretary of State asked about what he called the fifth good cause. I now understand the reasoning behind the written parliamentary question that he asked the other day, which he quoted. We have no plans to legislate to remove the fifth good cause from Big’s charter. We want purely to ensure that any projects in such areas benefit the voluntary and community sector rather than breaching additionality and funding statutory bodies, as we discussed. I hope that that answers his question.

I hope that I have dealt with the issues. We have had a wide-ranging discussion, but the most reassuring and important thing to me is that there is huge respect for and cross-party unanimity on the importance of the national lottery. I am sure that everybody here wishes it well.

Question put and agreed to.