National Lottery Bill

I thank the Minister for that response. The right reverend Prelate made some extremely good points in regard to his amendment. Indeed, I thought that the Minister—in contrast to my own amendment—rather conceded the case. If I may make so bold, the right reverend Prelate should be encouraged to bring his amendment back at the next stage. The Minister did not have an argument against it at all. Like the other clauses quoted by the right reverend Prelate, clearly it would make sense to include an additional requirement for consultation here, as is the case in so many other clauses. I waited with trepidation after the Minister trailed the howitzer of an argument that he was going to use, but I am afraid that when it finally appeared it was more of a mouse than anything else. I must say that it is precisely because the NAO is independent that it is included in this amendment. According to those in the many organisations who have urged me to move the amendment, it is precisely because of the constitutional position of the NAO that they wish to see it at least as the body advising on the situation in those circumstances. Because there is worry about the Government’s motives and interests in those circumstances, they wish to see the NAO operate as an independent body. Aside from that point, the Minister has himself admitted that he has no fresh arguments. So once he has conceded—and I hope he will—that it is precisely because of the independence of the NAO that it appears in the amendment and that there ought to be a reserve power in those circumstances, I cannot see that he has an argument against the NAO. So I look forward to the next stage of the Bill when I expect a different and more favourable response from the Minister. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.