Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken and, like the noble Lord, Lord Howard, regret the absence of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who would certainly have made a trenchant contribution to this discussion and subsequent ones. Perhaps we will have the pleasure of his company during our later consideration of the Bill. These amendments would subsume the use of the unclaimed assets and resources within the general National Lottery scheme. We think that it is better, clearer, more effective and more answerable to the nation that Big should take responsibility for distribution, but with an entirely separate accounting and reporting procedure on its work with regard to these assets. That is the principle behind the Bill and we want these unclaimed assets to be entirely separate from other operations of the lottery distributors. We are insisting upon mechanisms within Big that guarantee that. The background is that these resources represent a once-in-a-generation opportunity which we need to make the most of. We want this investment to make the biggest possible impact and we think that the most effective way of doing that is by identifying clear priorities—which we are setting out—and by ensuring that the money will be used effectively to support long-term commitments, have the biggest impact on the most pressing priorities and have a lasting legacy for communities. I hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said in his criticisms of Big. Some of them could be voiced against anyone with the challenging position that confronts the work of Big—particularly as we are still looking at a body that has existed for only three or four years and still has considerable expertise to build up. Nevertheless, it is clearly the most effective body for distribution, against a background where it will, as the legislation indicates, have responsibility for a separate fund for the discrete purposes of youth services’ financial capability, inclusion and social investment, which will differ from other work. The name ““Big”” is not exactly the most attractive. If we have a resident poet in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—if we have, I have not met her—I cannot imagine that poet having been consulted about that title. It gives out all the wrong signals about its work. It will work within a framework—it already works within the framework of the localities that it serves. The devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will determine their own spending priorities within the general framework. To make the most of the opportunity presented to deliver lasting benefits, it is important to ensure that the distribution mechanism is effective in allocating funds in support of those priorities. I am mindful of the fact that among Big’s potential disadvantages is the diversion of funds to the 2012 Olympics, to which the noble Lord, Lord Howard, referred. As we have made clear, the Olympics is exactly the kind of objective for which the National Lottery was conceived. It is a major national project of great significance to the whole nation. I cannot think of anything that fits that definition more accurately than the Olympic Games. However, I assure the Committee that challenges to Big’s decisions of allocation to the Olympics will have absolutely nothing to do with the resources that we are discussing in the framework of the Bill. Big will account for those resources entirely separately from its other operations. They will not be linked to the Olympics in any way. The dormant accounts will be managed by Big as an entirely separate and distinct fund, with separate spending areas, financial management and accounting arrangements. Schedule 3 sets out that the fund must prepare a statement of accounts and an annual report related to the distribution of dormant account money that are separate from those covering lottery resources, so that they are transparent. I cannot think of a way in which the Government could have been more explicit about their determination that these funds will not in any way, shape or form buttress, support or overlap with other resources for which Big is responsible. Its operations will entirely transparent in those terms. In moving the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has provided an opportunity for the voicing of concerns about Big’s operations, which should be subject to scrutiny. He should certainly be exercised, as undoubtedly is the whole Committee, about arrangements for guaranteeing the separateness of the resources in question. I assure the Committee that that is exactly where the Government stand on this matter. The Bill reflects the Government’s thinking.