Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 24 April 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on National Lottery Bill.


National Lottery Bill

My Lords, I thought the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham was pretty persuasive last time. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield has been even more persuasive this time. Indeed, I recall encouraging the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham to come back with the amendment. It seemed that it was perfectly analogous to the previous clause. There was no reason why these words should not be in this clause, as they are in Clause 7. Putting them in the Bill would make it more consistent, and would prevent a future Pharaohnic Minister from arising and not knowing the Church of England, or any other body that might wish to be consulted in these circumstances. The amendment is well worth supporting. One of my reasons for encouraging it to be brought back—when I tabled my own, rather weaker, amendment—was that the Minister had no answer to it except that it will happen. I am doubtful as to whether that is an adequate ministerial reply.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
681 c30-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Devolution Annual reports Artworks Finance Distribution Grants Historic buildings Investment income Economic regions Ministerial powers Powers Public appointments National Lottery Distribution Fund Lotteries National Lottery Publicity National Heritage Memorial Fund Big Lottery Fund
Legislation
National Lottery Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk