I had not intended to speak, but perhaps I can give the Minister an opportunity to reflect on the words uttered by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). He said that the Government amendment is not controversial. It is not controversial in the sense that it merely confirms what most hon. Members knew was the Government’s intention, but it is controversial in the sense that many people argue that a different licence length should be given to the lottery. Some people argue that the licence should last a short period, while others argue that it should last a long time.
Given that we are about to enter into a new phase of deliberation about who will provide the lottery in future, it is crucial that the Government are clear about issue, because it has a huge impact on who will bid to run the lottery and on the terms and conditions under which people would expect to run it. It is vital to make such matters clear, although, as I said in Committee, I believe that the Government have got the balance between the arguments about very short and very long time scales 100 per cent. right. Indeed, they have included the flexibility to extend the fixed period. So it is important to make that vital issue clear.
National Lottery Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Foster of Bath
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on National Lottery Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c1025 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 22:11:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292789
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292789
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292789