Proceeding contribution from Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 23 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on National Lottery Bill.
National Lottery Bill
My Lords, the remarks I made about Killarney apply to this amendment as much as to the previous one. In particular, in appreciation of the kind words uttered by the Minister about my absence on that occasion, perhaps I should stress that I was there for the meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body rather than for any other frivolous reasons. As on the London Olympics Bill, where the Minister was extremely helpful from Second Reading, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that he has been equally understanding on this occasion, although it has taken him a little longer. However, we are extremely appreciative. He will recall that we indicated at Second Reading that the Government in 1993 had thrown down the challenge to the Opposition to produce a better definition of ““additionality”” than was contained in the original Bill. The Minister threw back that challenge to us late at night in his winding-up speech at Second Reading and said that it was up to the Opposition to meet the challenge. However, he accepted the spirit if not the letter of the various attempts which the Opposition made and has now, with great skill, come up with the final solution. That is much appreciated. In the 1997 Parliament, there was a Member of Parliament whose election to the House of Commons was challenged on the grounds of their election expenses. I am afraid that the jury found against the Member of Parliament concerned, but the Member of Parliament was reprieved by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on the grounds that their dismissal from the House of Commons would effectively have been on a technicality. The Member of Parliament never came to be known in the House by the soubriquet ““Technicality Jones””, though had they lingered longer, they might have been. However, they left the House. As with Capability Brown, who would have inspired Technicality Jones, there has to be possibility that, despite the Minister’s skill, he will still go down in parliamentary history as Additionality Davies. I hope that he will treat it as the compliment that all of us intend.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 682 c707-8
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Distribution Grants National Lottery Distribution Fund Lotteries National Lottery
- Legislation
- National Lottery Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:05:08 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325436
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325436
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325436