There are various areas still to be decided, for which we are seeking general views: for example, a site for a special exhibition and a Millennium Award Scheme for individuals. They are bright enough to know that their expressing “Government” views might work against an outcome. We each have our own ideas – but equally, we each listen to the ideas of others. Are we swayed by Stephen Dorrell and Michael Heseltine because they represent the Government? Certainly not.

Collectively, we know a great deal about our beautiful countryside, cities and culture which will be improved further by the funds that Parliament has decided the lottery will make available to us.Do we all agree about everything at our meetings? Certainly not. Our combined expertise includes law, industry, science, ethnic minorities, tourism, consumer affairs, football and heritage. Nor do I believe or sense, from observing Mr Dorrell as chairman, that it is other than all the nine commissioners who take the decisions.
The commissioners come from varied backgrounds, from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This has fuelled doubt about my position, following a suggestion that I discuss the affairs of the commission with the Labour Party. Naturally, I can’t speak for Mr Dorrell, but I have never discussed an application with anyone other than the commissioners and our staff and have no intention of doing so. The leaking of a confidential letter from the chairman, Stephen Dorrell, to his Cabinet colleagues has raised the suspicion that we are being strongarmed by the Government. There has naturally been much attention as to whether we really represent the punters – lottery ticket buyers and British people in general.

Two are Government ministers, one is nominated by the Leader of the Opposition – the role I fill The other six are independent. If at the end of the 12-month period no admission, defence or counterclaim had been served, and if there had been no order or agreement extending time for delivery of defence and if no judgment had been entered against the defendant, the action at that time should be struck out.Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Peter Gibson agreed.. There is, quite rightly, high interest in the extent to which the Millennium Commission is independent There are nine commissioners. His Lordship could see no justification for implying such words.The words of the rule were clear.

Nor was the fact that the defendants had subsequently delivered a defence enough to prevent Order 9, rule 10 applying.It would require implying into the rule words making it clear that the relevant factors were to be determined as at the later date of any application relying on the rule. They applied for an order striking it out forthwith.The judge took the view that Order 9, rule 10 was mandatory, and did not depend on an application being made by the defendant, and that the action was struck out at the end of September 1992.The plaintiff relied on the wording of Order 17, rule 11(9) which provided that, in the circumstances to which it applied, “the action shall be automatically struck out” and contrasted that with Order 9, rule 10, which did not use the word “automatically”.But his Lordship did not regard the difference in wording between the two rules, introduced at different times, as conclusive. However, on being told the default summons was posted on 16 September 1991, the defendants took the point under Order 9, rule 10, that since their defence was not served until 20 May 1993 and no default judgment had been entered in the meantime, the action should have been struck out automatically after 12 months. On 18 March 1993, the plaintiff’s solicitors delivered detailed particulars of claim to the County Court, and served a copy on the defendants.On 20 May 1993, the defendants, who said they had no record of the proceedings, delivered a defence based on the Limitation Act 1980 contending that the action had been brought out of time.

In the event, no further pleadings were served by either party, nor was any other step taken in the action, until 18 months later. By Order 7, rule 10(3) of the Rules it was accordingly deemed to have been served seven days after it was posted, i.e. on 23 September 1991.It was common ground that the action was a default action. Accordingly, by Order 9, rule 2(6), the defendants were required to deliver a defence within 14 days after service of the summons on them. .”Christopher Dodd (Marsden & Cockshott, Bradford) for the plaintiff; Christopher Storey QC (Hammond Suddards, Bradford) for the defendant.Lord Justice Glidewell said the injury concerned was said to have occurred on 15 September 1988. A default summons was issued by his solicitors on 13 September 1991, two days within the limitation period, containing brief particulars of the plaintiff’s claim.The records of the County Court showed that a summons was sent by post on 16 September 1991 addressed to the defendants, and that it was not returned as unserved.