National Lottery Bill

I am deeply disappointed at the tone of the Minister’s response. I would have hoped for a far more welcome response: telling me that I had just got one or two words wrong which could be tidied up and then the amendment would be fine. I also find it disappointing when he says, ““the fund has decided””. That is a strange concept. This is supposed to be the Bill that sets up the fund. Frankly, it has no business deciding anything, because it should all be set up by this Bill. It seems quite proper, therefore, that Parliament should decide whether there is an English regional dimension. I am also disappointed that the Minister has given no evidence whatever that there is any sense of failure in the way the English regional committees have been involved with the Community Fund. They say they want to build on previous experiences. If the Minister had been able to give a catalogue of failures, that would be one thing, but we have not heard about that. I believe the right thing to do is to have a statutory framework, but there we are. As to a committee of 20, your Lordships’ House has plenty of committees with 20 and above. We do not let that worry us too much, and I do not think we should here when it comes to getting a committee that can properly represent a greater number of people in our country. However, we shall think on these things, and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.] Schedule 2 agreed to.