---

National Lottery Bill

My Lords, that challenge was laid down in appropriate fashion. I noticed during the passage of the Bill that the gauntlet was not picked up effectively on the other side, otherwise it would not be a government amendment that we would be considering today. I am grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would recognise that I am still part of that old school which says basically: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. Therefore, I am not so sure that I accept this as a wholly satisfactory occasion, but suffice it to say that the challenge that was laid down over additionality is exceedingly difficult. That is why noble Lords opposite were not able to respond to the challenge which I laid down. We have, however, recognised the obvious public concern about these issues and that lottery expenditure should be different from, and additional to, government funding. It is exceedingly difficult to define in law. We have given it our best shot. It is not a definition of additionality. I do not therefore deserve the epithet or soubriquet which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, suggested, but I welcome him back from the haunts of Killarney. Lest he thought for one moment that I thought he was there for anything other than a deeply serious purpose, I assure him that that was not the case. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 14 [Functions]: