 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates dormant |
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Celia Blacklock, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 16 October 2008[Dr. William McCrea in the Chair]Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords]Clause 23Directions
to Big Lottery
Fund 9
am
The
Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ian Pearson): I beg to
move amendment No. 19, in
clause 23, page 11, line 31, leave
out subsection
(2). Good
morning, Dr. McCrea. Subsection (2) was inserted into the clause in the
other place contrary to our wishes. It would require Parliament to
agree by affirmative resolution to the directions issued to the Big
Lottery Fund by the Secretary of State on operational matters, such as
the BLF’s financial management and staffing accounts, and by the
Secretary of State to the devolved Administrations on the distribution
of dormant account funds. By removing subsection (2), the Government
consider that the scope of the Bill, as previously drafted, will be
appropriate. Although I appreciate the arguments made in the other
place for greater transparency and accountability, I hope that the
Committee will accept that we have taken them into consideration
elsewhere in the Bill and that subsection (2) is not
necessary.
Mr.
Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con): In the context of the national
lottery Acts, will the Minister have similar powers to give direction
and will there be parliamentary scrutiny of those powers? It is
important to have comparability between the operation of the fund under
the Bill and the Big Lottery Fund’s usual
funds.
Ian
Pearson: I understand that the amendment tabled in the
other place goes beyond existing national lottery practice, which is
why we want to remove subsection (2). It could result in unintended
consequences, and its removal would delete the requirement for
Parliament to scrutinise the spending directions issued to the Big
Lottery Fund by the devolved Administrations. In the spirit of
devolution, the Government do not hold that Parliament should be
required to discuss matters that should be more properly debated in the
devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. When their lordships voted for the
amendment, I am not sure whether they realised that they would require
Parliament to scrutinise what are clearly devolved matters for Scotland
and
Wales. The
Government hold that the parliamentary scrutiny and financial spending
directions also covered by the provision are inappropriate. The powers
in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State for Children, Schools
and Families to make financial directions governing matters such as the
Big Lottery Fund’s accounts. They are standard powers necessary
for the oversight of a non-departmental public body. It is not
seriously intended
that the exercise of those powers be subject to an affirmative
resolution. Even if it were accepted that subsection (2) was
targeted at English spending directions—although the provision
goes beyond that—we would hold that the
affirmative procedure was
inappropriate. In
the other place, to be open and transparent about the
Government’s intentions, we set out our approach to the issuing
of English spending directions. The directions to the Big Lottery Fund
regarding spending in England will be considered by an
inter-ministerial working group—a matter that we have discussed.
It will involve the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the
Office of the Third Sector, the Department for Communities and Local
Government, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Her
Majesty’s Treasury. In addition, the Bill requires the BLF to be
consulted during the process of developing the
directions. The
inter-ministerial working group will make recommendations to the
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, who will issue
directions to the BLF. Paragraph 9(2) of schedule 3 will require the
BLF to set out in its annual report the directions given to it under
clause 23 that had effect during the financial year to which the report
relates. The Government understand need for transparency and have
listened carefully to the points made in the other place about the
possible time delay between the directions being issued and the
BLF’s reporting of them.
We are happy
to confirm that the BLF will publish the directions on its website as
they are issued, which further underscores our commitment to
transparency. As with the national lottery, the Government’s
position is that this mechanism for developing and issuing directions
to the BLF is the appropriate one and that creating a role for
Parliament in the process, which has not happened before, would be
disproportionate.
Question
put and agreed to.
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 34, in
clause 23, page 12, line 15, leave
out ‘Secretary of State’s consent’ and
insert ‘consent of
Secretary of State in charge of Lottery
matters’. No.
35, in
clause 23, page 12, line 18, at
end insert
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’. No.
36, in
clause 23, page 12, line 19, after
‘State’, insert
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’. No.
37, in
clause 24, page 12, line 39, after
‘State’, insert
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’. No.
38, in
clause 24, page 13, line 1, after
‘State’, insert
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’. No.
39, in
clause 24, page 13, line 8, after
‘State’, insert
‘in charge of
Lottery matters’.
No. 40, in
clause 25, page 13, line 11, after
‘State’, insert
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’. No.
41, in
clause 25, page 13, line 14, after
‘State’, insert
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’. No.
42, in
clause 25, page 13, line 29, after
‘State’, insert
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’. No.
43, in
clause 27, page 14, line 10, after
‘State’, insert
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’. No.
44, in
clause 27, page 14, line 14, after
‘State’, insert
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’. No.
45, in
clause 27, page 14, line 17, after
‘State’, insert
‘in charge of
Lottery
matters’.
Mr.
Hoban: I welcome you to what I hope is the
Committee’s final sitting, Dr. McCrea. These amendments are
straightforward. They would make it clear that, in respect of the
fund’s operation, the Secretary of State concerned would be the
Secretary of State with responsibility for lottery matters. Given the
current machinery of Government, that would be the Secretary of State
for Culture, Media and Sport. The reason for choosing the Secretary of
State in charge of lottery matters is that the BLF makes its report to
that Secretary of State, although it is a non-departmental public body.
That is the method of accountability, so it would seem obvious to
maintain a consistency of approach in that respect.
The second,
more substantive issue is that the Government have made it clear that,
as far as they are concerned, the Secretary of State referred to in the
Bill is the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.
Given that Secretary of State’s role in setting out the spending
priorities, we believe it would be in the interests of fairness and
objectivity for an alternative Minister to give those
directions.
The process
would be much more transparent if people felt that the person who gave
spending directions was not one of the Ministers responsible for a
policy area affected by one, if not two, of the three causes mentioned
in the Bill. It would be a better set-up if the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport led the process on behalf of the Government.
That would not preclude the inter-departmental working parties and all
the machinery that goes into sorting out the priorities, but people
would have more confidence in the objectivity of the spending
allocations and the directions given to the BLF if they were made by a
Minister who was independent of the three spending priorities. That is
why we propose the insertion
of “in
charge of lottery matters”
in about 10 places
throughout the Bill.
Ian
Pearson: As the hon. Gentleman suggests, these amendments
prescribe that the lead Secretary of State in respect of the unclaimed
assets scheme should be the same one who is responsible for overseeing
the national lottery. I will explain why the Government are taking a
different approach. As was debated previously, the main priority for
distribution in England will be youth services, so it is right for the
Department of Children, Schools and Families to take the
lead in issuing directions to the BLF, as the relevant lead policy
Department.
We must have
a lead and the hon. Gentleman rightly asks why it should not be DCMS,
and it is apparent that it could be. However, given that the main
priority for distribution is the provision of youth services, we hold
to the fact that it is better if the lead Department is the Department
for Children, Schools and Families. The BLF will therefore be
accountable to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families for the spending of unclaimed assets,
but spending priorities for unclaimed assets in
England—I freely admit this—cut across other
Departments’ policy areas, because of the other things that we
are interested in. That is one reason why we have set up the
inter-departmental ministerial working group to produce the directions
in the first
place. It
is not as though DCMS does not have a role; it will continue to have
responsibility for ensuring that the BLF is fit for purpose in
distributing lottery money, with appropriate systems in place. It will
be up to the Departments to satisfy themselves that the BLF is
distributing the funds for which they are responsible in accordance
with their directions and, in so doing, meeting their objectives. As
was said earlier, there will also be transparent disclosure of the
distribution of assets within the BLF’s annual report, which
will also publish details of the spending
directions. We
believe that that is the appropriate approach. We have said that youth
services are the priority, and we have to give a responsibility to a
Department to lead on the matter—it is a co-ordinated lead. We
remain of the view that it is appropriate that that Department is the
DCSF, and I invite hon. Members to reject the amendment if it is
pressed to a
Division.
Mr.
Hoban: I am not wildly comfortable with the idea of the
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families taking the lead
in this matter; it would be better if another Minister in another
Department did so, to ensure some fairness and equity in the
distribution of funds between the three causes. I am also slightly
concerned that we will end up with duplication: the DCMS has existing
links with the BLF, and we are in danger of creating a parallel chain
of engagement through the DCSF. Obviously, those costs, as is made
clear elsewhere in the Bill, will be met from dormant accounts, and
that will be another deduction from the amount of money that is
available to good causes.
I shall not
press the amendment to a Division. I suspect that there are enough hon.
Members on the Government Benches to outweigh the meagre numbers on the
Opposition Benches this morning. I cannot quite see that the power of
my oratory this morning will persuade Government Back Benchers to rebel
on such a matter, so I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
24 to 32 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 17 October 2008 |