National Lottery Bill

I thank the Minister for his reply. This has been a short but very useful debate. How this operates could be crucial in the way in which the distributors allocate their funds. There is an aim on all sides, reflected by the Minister in his assurances and by the Big Lottery Fund briefing, which I found very useful, to avoid gimmicks. We do not want a ““bread and circuses”” approach to BLF funding, let alone any other distributor. There is no difference between us: the issue is whether the wording of the clause will allow that approach to be adopted in certain circumstances. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, pointed out, governments change—even within governments there are changes of policy. Something may appear particularly attractive, and going down the opinion poll route might look politically attractive in certain circumstances. I shall read very carefully what the Minister said. He seemed to be giving as much assurance as he could in the circumstances. The question is whether I can push him any further and whether qualifications can be made that stack up. I accept that ““must”” may not be the most helpful of words in that context. However, I believe there is room for qualification as the clause is too open-ended. I may come back to this issue on Report but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 10 agreed to. Clause 11 [Distributing bodies: publicity]: