National Lottery Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that he was not being overprescriptive. In that case, he will not have much of a problem in accepting my amendment. But, of course, that will not be the case. He said that there would be no new arguments from the Government: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I can agree that we did not hear any new arguments. During the passage of this Bill, we on this side of the House have been grateful to the Minister for providing draft directions and draft orders. It has been enormously helpful for us to understand the Government’s thinking. If we could have more of them, more Bills would have a smoother transition through your Lordships’ House. However, I am still trying to get myself around the interpretation of a ““transformational grant””, as outlined in the directions, but I am sure that I will finally understand it. The Minister’s defence against my amendment is simple: namely, that the Secretary of State’s powers will set out at the highest level how expenditure will be made by the distributing bodies. The answer is that Clause 7 already does that. It sets out expenditure at the highest level. My amendment does not change that. It would delete ““prescribed””. It leaves in,"““charitable, or      (ii) connected with health, or      (iii) connected with education, or      (iv) connected with the environment””." The Minister said that this would not allow the Secretary of State to prescribe expenditure as it related to the devolved assemblies—Scotland and Wales. The argument works both ways. Perhaps we should have an amendment to say how the Big Lottery Fund should hand out the money to devolved areas. Under this amendment, the Secretary of State would be allowed to say to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or wherever, ““Well, I am very sorry. You have had too much. We will not give you so much this year””. I do not think that the Minister’s argument can work for and against him. It works equally both ways. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I will discuss the issue before Third Reading. Whatever the arguments, the Minister cannot claim with any validity that this Bill does not give the Government greater powers. It is a matter on which we disagree. I must ask the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 116.