| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I reiterate that the Prime Minister said that nuclear energy was on the agenda. He did not say that we would do it; he did not say that we would not do it. He said that it was on the agenda and needed to be considered. Clearly, if you build more nuclear power stations it will reduce your reliance on gas; that is a material consideration. Given that, on current projections, we will be 80 to 90 per cent dependent on foreign imports of gas, I should have thought that the House would be very concerned.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind the importance of the energy review, can the Minister give an undertaking that it will be published in good time for both Houses of Parliament to discuss it before we rise in July?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the statement is promised for July. The consultation will take place at the same time. I am sure that there will plenty of opportunities, at that time and subsequently, to debate the issues before firm policy decisions are taken.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, are adequate resources being applied to nuclear fusion, which leaves no waste material?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, we in this country have played a significant part in getting the worldwide ITER project going. It is, at last, under way. Of course, it would have enormous benefits if it came to fruition but, at the best estimate, it will not produce commercial electricity for at least 35 years. It is a long-term project, not one that will help us in the near future.
23 May 2006 : Column 699
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend note that the Prime Minister's remarks to the CBI were warmly welcomed by many Members on all sides of the House? There will be great disappointment if those remarks are not translated into the outcome of the energy review. Will he ensure that our mutual right honourable friend the Prime Minister fully understands that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not feel that it is my job to tell the Prime Minister that parts of Britain will be disappointed if we do not go forward on nuclear. I am sure that he is well aware of that himself.
Armed Forces Bill
3.06 pm
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Legal Services Bill: Joint Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of Wednesday 17 May be now considered, and that a committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on any draft Legal Services Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown; and that the committee do report on the draft Bill by 25 July 2006;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
L. Bach L. Campbell of Alloway B. Falkner of Margravine B. Henig L. Hunt of Wirral L. Neill of Bladen;
That the committee have power to agree with the committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Thursday 25 May 2006 at 10.30 am.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
23 May 2006 : Column 700
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
National Lottery Bill
3.07 pm
Clause 7 [National Lottery Distribution Fund: apportionment]:
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 6. These two amendments were grouped with an amendment which was passed by a narrow majority of two votes on Report. Following that, I should have formally moved them on Report. Through the excitement of winning a vote, and oversight, I did not. The Minister has kindly allowed me to move them today, and accept that they were grouped.
However, I understand that, since Report, he has been able to consider the principle of the amendments and may have something to say about their suitability for the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I think that one is in the position of welcoming the Minister's comments in advance, as a result of the Third Reading procedure. It is rather like having private notice that at least half the argument, the significant half, has been accepted. The prescription of those categories will be taken account of, but they will not be absolutely binding. That is a significant amendment to this Bill, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken and anticipated with such enthusiasm the words that I am about to utter. I hope that I do not disappoint them.
We discussed these amendments on Report, when I set out why we could not accept them. Due to a slight slip, the amendments were not formally moved at that stage, but the Government accept that they were effectively carried. That being so, I will explain how we propose to deal with those matters when the Bill returns to the other place. For the reasons that we have given at length, the Secretary of State needs to be able to set out, at the very highest level and in the broadest possible way, the types of expenditure that the Big Lottery Fund should focus on. The Secretary of State is not out to direct the Big Lottery. I want to put to bed the notion that the Government seek directly to interfere in the work and allocation of the Big Lottery Fund. However, without the ability to prescribe devolved expenditure, the devolution arrangements in the Bill would not work. We will, therefore, seek in the other place to retain the powers in Clause 7.
23 May 2006 : Column 701
I made clear on Report how important we thought that was. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, emphasised that it was a fundamental concern that, as they saw it, there was perceived government control over the Big Lottery Fund. They wanted assurances about prescription. As I maintained then, I think their fears are unfounded, but I accept that they are genuinely felt.
We will, therefore, table amendments in another place that deliver the spirit of Amendment No. 6. We accept that the House voted accordingly and that, for procedural reasons, the vote was not recorded. We will act according to the decision of this House. Our amendments in the other place will provide that the Big Lottery Fund must comply with policy directions only as to matters to be taken into account. That will put the Big Lottery Fund in the same position as the Community Fund and all the other lottery distributors.
We accept the noble Lords' arguments, and the fact that the position was established on Report but the amendment was not carried for procedural reasons. I undertake that the Government will fulfil the requirements imposed by this House in the spirit of the previous decision and will table amendments accordingly.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister and congratulate him on being able to persuade his colleagues in his department and in another place of the force of our arguments. We are very pleased because he has accepted the main issue. The Government have now agreed that, in the provision on directions, "comply with" is too strong. They will revert to "take account of", which, after all, puts the Big Lottery Fund only in exactly the same position as the other distributing bodies. It makes the process much more sensible.
I understand the noble Lord's concerns about Amendment No. 1, relating to Clause 7. Indeed, he makes a valid argument about its effect on lottery distribution in the regions. We thank the Minister for listening with such care and taking account of our concerns, and look forward to seeing the amendment when it is tabled in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.15 pm
Clause 8 [Reallocation of funds]:
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |