Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 51: 51: Clause 15, page 7, line 33, leave out subsection (1) The noble Lord said: We now move from raising the money to spending it. We heard in the first part of the Bill a mantra from Ministers which I can guarantee we will not hear in this part. The first half of the Bill was all to do with the voluntary scheme; this half is to do with how the Government plan to spend the money that the banks have so generously donated. The logic of the Government’s approach, with them having said that it is a voluntary scheme and accepted that it is money that the banking sector holds, is to say to the banking sector, ““We agree that this is a voluntary scheme. You will voluntarily put the money into the reclaim fund and, then, as it is money from you, why don’t you decide how you are going to spend it? You can spend it along the lines that you currently spend funds in your charitable activities and, in respect of the some of the building societies, that will happen anyway””. There would have been logic in that, and we would have had a much shorter Bill. As Ministers are aware, we on these Benches have from the start suggested that the scheme should not be voluntary, but statutory, and should cover all banks and building societies. Therefore, the logic is that we want to have a say in how the money is spent. We are, as it happens, being given that chance, because the Government want the best of both worlds: they want the banks to sort out the difficult issues around raising the money and administering it, but they want to get the benefit of how it is spent. I am sure that we can imagine the Prime Minister joyously opening a series of youth clubs up and down the country that have been funded from this scheme. The two amendments in this group seek to tease out the Government’s priorities about how the money will be spent. Although, to a certain extent, it is prescriptive, to another extent it is pretty unclear. Clause 15(1), for example, states that, "““the Big Lottery Fund shall distribute dormant account money for meeting expenditure that has a social or environmental purpose””." Yet, in Clause 17, which deals with how the money will be spent, no environmental purpose is included. Turning to my second amendment in this group, in Clause 17 we also see the interesting insertion of the word ““or”” between paragraphs (a) and (b) and paragraph (c) in subsection (1) which define the three different areas in which it is proposed that the money should be spent. To a casual reader, that would mean that the money was either to be spent on youth provision and financial literacy or that it was to be made available to a social investment wholesaler. I suspect that that is not what the Government mean at all. I think that they mean that it will be distributed to a combination of those three channels. However, we would welcome some clarification from Ministers as to why the word ““or”” appears there and whether what they have in mind is a simplistic reading of the Bill whereby the money will be distributed to one or the other. I should also welcome Ministers’ views on an expansion of the point that I have just raised. What are their priorities regarding the three strands, assuming that they mean that the three strands should all receive a degree of funding? Do they have it in mind to divvy up the money three ways equally or do they intend to divide it in another way? Of course, how the money is spent may depend on how much money there is. This will be the subject of debate when we come to a later amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, in which he says that a social investment wholesaler must take priority by being given the first £250 million of the scheme. However, taking the figures produced by the BBA, we may well find that only £250 million is available in total, and in that case priorities will presumably be rather different than if £2 billion were available. Therefore, it would be useful to know whether the Government agree with the estimate of the amount of money that will be available. The next question, which we will be debating in later amendments, is how the money can best be used. By that, I mean where the money can have most effect. It seems to me that, although we have accepted from the start that all these three strands are very important and that they are, quite properly, areas which might benefit from the fund, on closer examination the third area is the one where the money can have the biggest impact, not least because there are already so many other programmes which help young people and help financial literacy and financial information. For example, in December I was intrigued to see that the Government produced their financial inclusion action plan, which proposes that £130 million should be spent on access to financial services and financial literacy over the period 2008-11. However, it seems to me that the need in relation to the social investment wholesaler and the fund’s ability to have an impact are arguably greater than elsewhere. All those involved in the social investment movement believe that a government commitment to a social investment wholesaler would generate significant funds from elsewhere, which is unlikely to be the case under the other two strands. There is also now a pent-up demand in the social enterprise sector for funding, and increased support across all parties—and certainly within government—for social entrepreneurs to play a bigger part across the whole raft of activity, not least in the provision of public services. At the beginning of the week I was privileged to be present at a reception held by the All-Party Social Enterprise Group. This was attended by social entrepreneur ambassadors from across the country who had been identified by the Social Enterprise Coalition, and during the course of the evening I was able to talk to them about what they were doing. Like many Members of the Committee, no doubt, I go to a lot of receptions, quite a few of which are fairly dreary events, particularly at the end of the evening when one is looking at one’s watch and hoping to get away. Somewhat to my surprise, that event was extremely inspiring. It is not that I do not expect social entrepreneurs to be inspiring, but we do not always have access to them. I was impressed by the range of activities in which these entrepreneurs are involved. They are doing the things that we as a society want done, often in the areas of health, education and other aspects of public provision. In my view—I have not had time yet to discuss this in any great detail with my colleagues, either here or in another place, although I have no reason to think that they will disagree—this third strand should get priority within the Bill. I have no idea what the Government’s view is at this stage. As we begin to discuss the distribution process, I hope the Minister can lay out the Government’s thinking on how they see the three different elements they have identified being funded and what are going to be their priorities. I beg to move.