| |
|
|
| LORDS
SUPPORT FOR WORRIES OVER OLYMPICS LOTTERY FUNDING |
03/03/04 |
| |
NCVO
has welcomed the House of Lords’ “powerful acknowledgement” of its concerns
over plans for National Lottery games to support the UK Olympic bid.
Debating the Horserace Betting and Olympics Lottery Bill, MPs lined up to
echo the NCVO’s concerns that the proposals would see less money going to
good causes.
“NCVO has profound doubts about the ability of the new Olympic Lottery games
to raise the estimated £750 million required to stage the Olympics. It seems
highly probable that such new games will eat into sales of other games,”
noted Labour Peer Lord Judd.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville expressed similar concerns and was followed
by Baroness Pitkeathley, who highlighted unease over the provision of special
powers that would enable the Secretary of State to raid the National Lottery
Distribution fund to boost Olympics funding.
NCVO has proposed that the 12% duty on lottery tickets should be split between
good causes and prizes.
It also suggested that, rather than granting the Secretary of State reserve
powers to make payments from the National Lottery distribution fund into
the Olympic Lottery Distribution fund, powers should be granted to transfer
unclaimed prizes, worth more than £590 million, to the Olympics.
This suggestion was picked up on by government Spokesperson for Culture,
Media and Sport Lord Davies of Oldham. He promised the government “will
consider that proposal in further detail and decide on the extent to which
it could be employed”, but also insisted that the government had “no intention
of raiding good causes to provide for the Olympic games”.
NCVO's head of campaigns Chris Stalker welcomed the debate, saying: “It
is very encouraging that the bill has received such a frosty response in
the Lords following its swift and unchallenged journey through the Commons.
“The very real concerns of the voluntary sector have been powerfully acknowledged,
and we hope very much that the government will concede that it has simply
got it wrong and minimise the damage to good causes by amending the bill.”
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
