National Lottery Bill

I apologise for intervening as the Minister is about to speak, but it is probably easier if I speak before him rather than after. I simply want to say, as none of us had the opportunity to do so after he wound up on Second Reading, that the challenge he threw down to the Opposition—and I have discussed this with him privately—to produce definitions of additionality was against a background where the Government had included a definition of additionality in the Bill in 1993 and then agreed that if the Opposition came up with a better one, they would be prepared to accept it. On this occasion, we are not seeing the Government’s definition of additionality—yet, perfectly reasonably, the Minister has made the challenge. Therefore, the situation is somewhat different. A thought has only just occurred to me in terms of the long history since 1997; I should have intervened on the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, did so first. Did the Government determine that something was additional expenditure when they selected the subjects to pass on to the New Opportunities Fund or did the New Opportunities Fund have to decide whether expenditure was additional? If the Minister is able to answer that question, it would add to the knowledge of all of us.