UK Parliament / Open data

Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 97: 97: Clause 25, page 12, line 39, leave out from ““State”” to end of line 2 on page 13 and insert ““demonstrates to the Fund that he has incurred in respect of— (a) the giving of directions under section 21 in relation to English expenditure, and (b) any other purpose under this Act.”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 102. Amendment No. 97 concerns the ability of the Secretary of State, under Clause 25, to grab money from the Big Lottery Fund to meet his expenses. There are similar smash-and-grab provisions for the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish in this clause as well, and my Amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 102 seek to amend those subsections in a similar way to Amendment No. 97. As the clause is currently drafted, the Secretary of State can take as much money as he thinks is appropriate to meet expenses in giving directions, and there is also a catch-all of expenses incurred ““under this Act””. The Explanatory Notes give no sense of what kind of expenses are expected to be covered by Clause 25. Therefore, my first question is: can the Minister describe in more detail what the Government intend? I can just about see that some modest expenses might be associated with giving directions to the Big Lottery Find, but I am not at all clear about other expenses that Clause 25(3) is expected to cover. The Bill is drafted in terms of the Secretary of State demanding what he wants from the Big Lottery Fund. Although I am sure that it would be perfectly lawful for the fund to pay up what the Secretary of State demanded, it cannot be sound financial practice for the Secretary of State to demand sums on an unsubstantiated basis and to expect a body to pay on that basis. The fund should be in a position to check—and, if appropriate, to challenge—what the Secretary of State puts in his demands. The Bill talks about ““expenses””, and I hope the Minister will also clarify that term. In particular, is it expected to cover the apportioned cost of staff time spent working on the directions and other aspects of the Bill? Will it also include some calculations of overheads? I am not sure that those are expenses but they are certainly costs, and I should be grateful for the Minister’s views on whether they will be included. The Minister will know that if apportionments and calculations are required, there are no simple rules that apply, and hence some form of examination to establish the reasonableness of what is being demanded from the Big Lottery Fund seems to be appropriate. In addition, the Bill is expressed in terms of the Secretary of State demanding not only expenses that he has incurred, but also expenses that he will incur; that is, he will be asking for funding ahead of need, which, as far as I can recall, goes against one of the fundamental principles of handling public money. Of course, this is not public money in a pure sense, but money for which there is public accountability. It must surely be the case that expenditure must be actual spending, not prospective estimates which may prove to be excessive. Accordingly, Amendment No. 97 says that the Secretary of State has to demonstrate to the fund what he has incurred—not what he will incur—on giving directions and on other matters under this Act. I hope that I have explained the change of emphasis in this clause that I seek to make; namely, not that the Secretary of State does not have expenses that might be taken, but, first, that he should justify them and, secondly, that we should seek clarification from the Minister in this Committee as to what the expenses might be and how they are to be calculated. I beg to move.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c503-4GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top