National Lottery Bill

My Lords, I will stick to the main theme first and move to that subsidiary one later. I owe the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, a response to his amendment. He will recognise that at our preceding stage his colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, had pointed out that were the Government ever to seek to use the proposed allocation power, there might be other interested parties apart from the distributing body from which the funds were being transferred, the body or bodies intending to receive the transfer and the administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We accepted that there might be a wider range of interests. For example, Ministers for arts, sports and heritage would have a legitimate interest in the proposed use of reallocation power in their sectors. As I said in Committee, the wider sectors would have ample opportunity to make representation without this amendment. It is intended that any use of the proposed reallocation power would be subject to affirmative resolution, meaning that these matters would have to be debated subject to approval both in your Lordships’ House and in another place. The proposed use of the power would be fully within the public domain well before it could be implemented and consequently it would be possible for all to comment upon it. I hear what my noble friend Lord Borrie says when he regards this as otiose because the Secretary of State has powers to consult but it is at times important that we identify specific interests that need to be taken into account. I am indicating that specific interests are taken into account as well as the mechanism by which effect is given to these proposals. They are subject to parliamentary debate and approval. That should allay anxieties. It particularly allays the anxiety that any Secretary of State might have Pharaoh-like powers. Secretaries of State change over time, as we have noticed, and it may be that they do not have all have excellent memories or that they are not briefed on what their predecessors said. But there is a world of difference between Pharaoh’s Egypt, where arbitrary decisions could be taken by the powers that be, and a parliamentary democracy where we have built into the legislation the understanding that there must be public debate about this issue before the power can be used. I am not sure that Pharaoh could have tackled Joseph on the basis of these procedures.