Do you think the Lords will agree on a definition of additionality?
It's extremely difficult to define additionality, but I do think that a consensus may emerge over time. That said, I think it's very unlikely that we will agree upon an amendment defining additionality as the Bill goes through. The Government clearly has a view about additionality that is rather different from that of the opposition parties.
What is the purpose of your proposed amendment?
The amendment I have tabled is similar to the one Don Foster MP put forward at report stage in the Commons. The minister gave an assurance in the Commons that the lottery distributors would detail in their annual reports what their behaviour had been regarding additionality, and whether or not they felt they were complying with the principle. That is designed to leave the question of additionality open to interpretation, but it also exposes the fact that the distributors will have had to make a decision on whether something is additional or not.
What's your expectation?
What we would like to see is that commitment enshrined in legislation.
Governments change and times change, and we think it would be important to have that obligation on the face of the Bill even if we can't agree a definition of additionality at this stage. It may be that, over time, we can then tease out a concrete definition of what additionality is.
Will distributors' reports be debated in Parliament?
Their annual reports will be on the public record. If select committees wish to debate whether or not expenditure has been correct, they will then be able to do so. The process is not that formal but, because it will be on the record, people will be able to transparently debate whether or not distributors came to the right decisions. They will also be able to discuss whether they agree with the distributors' definition of additionality.