Lord Norton of Louth (Con)

My Lords, the Minister’s response is disappointing. I am grateful to the two Front Benches for their very kind opening comments but in terms of the substance of the amendment, I thought the Minister’s comments reinforced the case for post-legislative scrutiny; she spent some time explaining why the Bill has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which I would have thought adds to the case for subjecting it to post-legislative scrutiny. She referred to the Football Governance Act, which just dealt with one particular issue, whereas this Bill is very wide-ranging. There is therefore scope for a lot of things to go wrong, which I would have thought reinforced the case for checking that the Bill has delivered on all aspects of what the Government seek to achieve with it. The value of committing to post-legislative scrutiny is the Government demonstrating that they have confidence in the measure. If there is to be a review anyway, why not put that on the face of the Bill? At least critics of it would then know that it will definitely be subject to review—it is in the Bill, and that will happen. That is one of the arguments for post-legislative scrutiny of the Football Governance Act. As I say, I am disappointed with the response. I shall keep coming back to the case for putting provision for post-legislative scrutiny on the face of Bills that meet the criteria I have outlined, and will press the Government to have the courage of their convictions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.