---

National Lottery Bill

I think the Minister got me wrong. I was not attacking his colleague, Mr Caborn—he was coming to my defence in my amendment. I am always grateful for the support that Mr Caborn has given me in what he said in Committee. Even as far away as Melbourne, he carries on giving me support. He went on to say:"““We want to encourage innovative advice on the best management of projects, particularly capital projects””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 25/10/05 col. 96.]" That is the Big Lottery Fund giving advice to other distributors. What was said in Standing Committee A about the role of the Big Lottery Fund goes beyond what the Minister has said this evening. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. It might allay our fears if he considers the issues and writes to my noble friend Lord Eccles and me before Report; I would be grateful if he did so. It is important to know exactly what the relationship will be between the Big Lottery Fund and the other distributing bodies. Will the fund help applicants, which is an entirely good thing? If it is to move beyond that to becoming involved in the processes of the other distributing bodies, such as good practice or advice on capital projects, we need to know how far that will go. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.