Mr.
Browne: I can understand the Minister’s reluctance
to commit himself to rigid percentages and in fact, despite wanting the
amendment to achieve that, both the hon. Member for Fareham and I have
conceded the point. However, by not committing himself to any
percentages or even any indication, the Minister seems to be going
right to the other end of the scale. Were I a representative of a youth
services organisation, my attitude towards the Bill would be different
if I thought that my organisation would be the beneficiary of 10 per
cent. of the funds rather than 90 per cent. of the funds. That makes a
substantial difference to what we want to achieve by the Bill. I accept
that the hon. Gentleman will not say 47 per cent., 33 per cent. and 20
per cent., but he could say that he envisages that youth services would
receive more than half the total money. People would then know roughly
where they stand in relation to the Government’s
ambitions.
Ian
Pearson: It is premature to specify percentages to
individual areas but, when it comes to spending directions, we will
give guidance to the Big Lottery Fund on such matters. I appreciate
that organisations out there see what we are proposing to do and are
already anxious to bid into the Big Lottery Fund for exciting new
projects, but throughout the Government we must have a detailed look at
our overall priorities within such areas so that we can make sufficient
funds available that will be complementary to the Government’s
current activities and genuinely additional. Discussions have taken
place with a range of organisations on how potential sums might be put
together most effectively, and it is right that those discussions have
been held.
Mr.
Hoban: Is there in the Minister’s mind a case for
looking at the money that comes through in two different ways? There
will be a big lump at the start, after which amounts will drip through
annually. Clearly, to go back to the social investment wholesaler
argument, it would be easier to meet its needs from the big lump at the
beginning, rather than that coming through on an annual basis, given
its estimate of how much it needs. For youth services it may be easier
to fund a building project from that big lump at the start, rather than
from the annual amounts coming through. If the money is to be used to
help capitalise credit unions, for example, that initial release of
money from dormant accounts might be the best way to do it. Will the
money that is available at the start be looked at strategically and
will it be looked at differently from the money that comes through on
an annual
basis?
Ian
Pearson: We certainly want to take a properly strategic
approach to decisions on spending directions to the Big Lottery Fund. I
explained earlier that one of the reasons why we wanted some of the
larger building
societies to be in the fund was that we wanted it to have sufficient
critical mass so that a genuinely strategic approach could be taken.
The sorts of consideration to which the hon. Gentleman refers are
things that we are thinking about as a Government at the moment.
Clearly, he is right to probe on those matters, but they are not part
of the
Bill. We
still do not believe that there needs to be the order-making power that
amendment No. 5 would give us because we think that these priorities
will be enduring. We still do not think that amendment No. 32, which
rigidly specifies equal amounts for the three areas, makes sense,
although I appreciate its probing nature. Finally, stocks and flows are
still unknown. An interdepartmental working group is looking at the
issues
and trying to work out what a sensible strategic programme would look
like over a period of time. We will obviously want to consult outside
Government too, not necessarily on a formal basis to delay things, but
to ensure that we work closely with the Big Lottery Fund, which already
does lots of work in these
areas. Mr.
Browne: That was a useful conversation. It would have been
nice if it had gone further. We await developments with interest. I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
19 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
20 to 22 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Blizzard.] Adjourned
accordingly at two minutes to Five o’clock till Thursday 16
October at Nine
o’clock.
| 
