National Lottery Bill

The noble Lord has the advantage over me of being a lawyer, but I do not know how he translates a common-law principle into a Bill, which will become an Act of Parliament, without giving a precise definition of what certain phrases within it will mean. What would core government funding mean in these terms? I shall not berate the Liberal Democrats at this stage, because I have the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on my side for once in spirit. But in its manifesto at the last general election, the Conservative Party proposed a club-to-school scheme—a scheme under which every child would have the right to two hours of free after-school sports coaching paid for with £750 million of National Lottery money. There is an interesting concept of the voluntary contribution from school teachers in providing support and coaching children as against this additional money—or would it be separate money? Would it be part of government core funding? Clearly not, because the Conservatives intended it to come from the lottery. But we would be pressed to say that no element of after-school coaching in sport for children has anything at all to do with the Department for Education and Skills or the provision that it makes. This distinction will not stand up. That is the nature of the Conservative Front Bench’s problems—not that I am berating it for making the attempt. In fact, I am guilty of encouraging it, on Second Reading, to try to do that. I greatly applaud its effort. Unfortunately, I can only give marks for incorporating amendments into legislation if they deserve 10 out of 10. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and many others have said, the amendment falls far short of being 10 out of 10, and will not do for legislation. It will not work, although it is a good try. That is why I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will recognise that his amendment will have to be reconsidered and withdraw it.