UK Parliament / Open data

Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

The amendments in this group concern the expenses that the Government and the devolved Administrations will inevitably incur in administering and keeping an oversight of the unclaimed assets scheme. I have been asked what those expenditures will be. They clearly will be the administration costs, including overheads, of directions that may be made to Big and of keeping an eye on Big’s effective use of money. Some Members of the Committee asked exactly what Big does in this enterprise. As is established practice, the Government intend to reclaim the expenses that they incur. They do so in respect of National Lottery funds. Clearly, if the Government can do that, it is right that the devolved Administrations are able to do the same in respect of their own areas. It is clearly important—here, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness—that the costs are minimal and are consistent with effective oversight and administration. We are not sure that the noble Baroness’s model is any better than ours. Given that, under the Bill, the Big Lottery Fund will be accountable to the Secretary of State for the effective use and distribution of dormant account funds drawing on the advice of the devolved Administrations for their distribution outside England, it would seem anomalous for them to need to demonstrate their case to Big. In the way that these things work, it would more properly be for the accounting officer for the relevant department—in this case, the Department for Children, Schools and Families—to assure it that the administrative costs incurred were appropriate as part of its overall duty to make effective use of public funds, and for the accounting officers of the devolved Administrations to do the same in respect of their relevant functions. We contend that the role of the accounting officer is one of the answers to the noble Baroness’s concerns that somehow the Secretary of State will demand expenses that are not valid. On the scale of costs, which I know is one of the noble Baroness’s concerns, I reassure the Committee that while it is not possible to provide a figure at this stage for the likely costs that will be incurred in relation to the running of the unclaimed assets scheme, we certainly do not expect to incur significant costs in maintaining this oversight of the scheme and accountability for Big’s spending. For the administration of the distribution of lottery funds, as the Committee may know, the DCMS charges the National Lottery Distribution Fund approximately £250,000 per year, which is less than 0.02 per cent of what is raised for good causes each year. Our estimate is that the cost in relation to overseeing the scheme we are debating in this Committee should be significantly less than that, due to it being a smaller fund. With regard to spending outside England, as I have already said, the Secretary of State will draw on advice from the devolved Administrations for distribution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Although the Secretary of State will have overall oversight, it will be for those Administrations to work with Big in their own countries to ensure that spending is distributed in a manner that meets the targets intended in the direction that each Administration issues to Big and the outcome of the funding programmes that they agree with Big. Therefore, I hope that, even if only to a small extent, the noble Baroness is now happier with our proposals. I repeat that it will be the duty of the accounting officer for the relevant department to ensure that there is no huge expense claim.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c504-5GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top