Proceeding contribution from David Leslie Taylor (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on National Lottery Bill.
National Lottery Bill
The hon. Gentleman says that new clause 2, which was tabled by the Conservatives, would tighten up the arrangements in some respects, but it suggests that lottery distributors should consider whether the Government ““would usually be”” the source of the provision. The word ““usually”” implies that a category of activities and projects would not fall within the proposed definition. How on earth will the lottery bodies make a distinction between the two? Unless we state that the Government will always make such provision—that could be impractical as well—new clause 2 is a dead letter, is it not?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 441 c1005
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Charities Community Fund Licensing Distribution National Lottery Distribution Fund Lotteries Prize money National Lottery Public expenditure New Opportunities Fund Millennium Commission Voluntary organisations Big Lottery Fund National Lottery Commission
- Legislation
- National Lottery Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 22:11:15 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292759
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292759
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292759