National Lottery Bill

My noble friends Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Lord Eccles successfully exploded much of the Minister’s argument. He said that when secondary legislation comes here, it can be examined. Well, that is about all it can be: examined. You cannot do anything else in this House. We are concerned about this because subsection (2)(a) of new Section 36E states that the directions may,"““specify persons to whom the Fund may or may not make grants””," or may specify the purposes—a whole load of things giving the Government great powers. It is no good the Government saying that they want broad powers, when, if you look at the Bill, it does not stand up. They have given themselves substantial powers. I think we have made as much progress—or lack of progress—as we are going to on this amendment. My noble friends and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I will have to go away, put on our thinking caps and come back with the same, or a better, amendment. We are not satisfied. It is a concern. The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, ““We want only broad powers and are not going to interfere. We are going to have a formula for England””. I nearly thought of asking the Minister whether there is a formula for the Channel Islands and how much money is going to go to Sark or Alderney. I am sure that he could do that calculation in his head in a matter of seconds but I will resist the temptation. We will come back to this issue. These powers cast a shadow over the Government’s intention on the rest of the Bill. That is why they are so important. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.