Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his first outing on the Bill. Before I get into the body of the amendment, I perhaps ought to declare an interest. I am a member of several boards of charities, and I work for a charity, so I am rather hoping that if we endorse this amendment, those charities might at some point benefit from it. Nevertheless, it is an interest to be declared.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for leading this debate in Committee, when he proposed what could be called a “full-fat” version of the community wealth fund initiative. In Committee, the Government argued that the local trust proposals, while interesting, are not sufficiently worked through, meaning that the DCMS is not in a position to make community wealth funds a beneficiary of dormant asset funds at this time.

Amendment 1 suggests a reasonable compromise and, on that basis, we hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. The text would give the Government the power to establish a long-term pilot scheme, enabling small-scale investments to be made in local communities that have been left behind in recent years and for data relating to the social impact of those investments to be gathered and analysed. The amendment does not compel Her Majesty’s Government to act but gives them the tools needed to commission such a pilot.

The Government’s stated commitment to the levelling- up agenda was very much at the centre of their 2019 election campaign and, of course, they have subsequently argued strongly in favour of levelling up in many different guises and fora—we await anxiously, with bated breath and much anticipation, the arrival of the White Paper—so it is hard to see any reason why DCMS should exclude itself from that policy process and not agree to trial the community wealth fund approach.

My argument is simply that the proposal could act as a powerful tool in boosting deprived areas, putting small sums of money in communities’ hands so that they can invest in the facilities or services that would have the most local benefit—perhaps subsidising a community hall, running adult learning classes, supporting skills and training hubs and sports facilities, and improving digital connectivity. I am sure we could all come up with a long list of things that could directly benefit communities that have been left behind and require levelling up.

The other feature of this, which speaks to the amendment, is that much of the Government’s funding so far announced for levelling-up programmes is focused from the centre, so it is directed and targeted at precise places and communities. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but the community wealth fund, if trialled and piloted in the right way, would put money directly into the hands of communities that sought to benefit from them, giving a sort of bottom-up approach, one that I believe most of us in your Lordships’ House would very much support.

Stakeholders have repeatedly signalled a willingness to discuss their idea with Ministers. They are realistic about the difficulties of adopting community wealth funds with a big bang approach, which in my view adds rather more weight to the proposal for a time-limited series of low-risk pilots.

Finally, while I am on this point, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, who has made a valedictory speech and is therefore unable to contribute to this debate. We are grateful for her support for this amendment, as well as that of the Bishops at large. We are also, of course, very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for her wider service in your Lordships’ House.

We see this amendment as part of a levelling-up agenda and a way of empowering communities, as well as an opportunity to trial new and innovative ways of funding communities. We believe that this has a low-risk attached to it but would nevertheless give a boost, and some inspiration and thinking, to local wealth creation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am very delighted to support this amendment. My colleagues and I are great believers in empowering local communities. Indeed, in my years as an MP, I saw a number of local initiatives, driven by local people and community groups, that did some extremely good work but could not cope with the mutual demands of both providing their services and fundraising, so they were unable to grow to that kind of sustainable point that was so important in the community. It seems to me that the community wealth fund gives opportunities to those new initiatives, driven by local people, targeted very much towards the members of the local community and very much reflecting local need. It would seem ideal to do this under the structure of the dormant assets programme.

I have two other reasons for feeling that this is important. Later on Report, we will address issues of oversight over the kind of programmes funded through dormant assets. But it seems to me that there is no way that that issue can be addressed without recognising that the kind of resources for the detailed scrutiny and monitoring of programmes is in short supply. It seems to me that, when you have small local programmes, a well-structured community wealth fund arrangement can put in place that administrative oversight and make sure that, locally, the funds are well spent, provide value for money and are properly targeted. So that level of administration in fact makes up for a much broader weakness, frankly, within the overall dormant assets structure.

I am also very pleased to look at a pilot approach—this will be a case of trialling, reshaping and refining—because I am concerned to make sure that the money derived from the dormant asset funds is used in addition to the kind of services that ought to be provided, whether by central or local government. It will be really important for an entity such as the community wealth fund to work in tandem with local authorities but not substituting for what they can or should be doing. We do not want duplication of administration or service, and we certainly do not want to give central government an opportunity to further reduce the resources that it provides to local authorities on the grounds that the dormant asset fund and various charitable and local civic societies will do the work in its place and not require the normal support and resource that ought to be provided.

It therefore seems to me that this is very much a win-win approach, and I hope that the Government will take it on board. The Bill is an opportunity to expand what has been a very successful programme in significant additional directions, and this is certainly one of them.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have my name down in support of this amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, builds on one that we debated in Committee. As is always the case, when you come back to the subject, there is a risk of a great deal of repetition, and I do not wish to try the patience of the House with a long exposé. During the debate in Committee, the Minister’s predecessor, my noble friend Lady Barran, raised some significant concerns that the Government had about the way that this might operate. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has very neatly—if I may say so without sounding patronising—answered some of the points made then.

I will repeat, in four sentences, four reasons why I am attracted to community wealth funds. They are very local and can reflect the often highly idiosyncratic needs of a particular local community. They can provide a physical space—a building—as a focus for presenting and answering those particular needs. Thirdly, they can provide an element of professional help, without which a purely voluntary organisation can struggle. Fourthly—this is most important—they can provide the long-term capital needed to answer and build answers to the very deep-seated challenges that many of these communities face.

However, as my noble friend Lady Barran said—I am sure that if I could see my noble friend’s speaking note I would see that he will repeat it in a minute—this is a new approach and the Community Wealth Fund Alliance is setting out, brimming with confidence, hope and optimism. I certainly wish it well, but there will be difficult days ahead with hard decisions about structure, approach, governance and impact. The noble Baroness will probably raise that last issue in her speech in a minute. It is dangerous if you accept too rigid an approach in primary legislation; if it subsequently turns out to be less than ideal, you are stuck with it. So there is an element of “Be careful what you wish for”.

Then there is the issue of consultation. I think many of us would say that this was a case of putting the cart before the horse. Normally you have a consultation, get the results, draft the legislation and then discuss it in the light of what has been discovered, but that has not happened here and we are going at it the other way around. Whether we like it or not, that is where we are. So I can see why, unsatisfactory though that approach is, in the circumstances, the Government cannot and do not want to pre-empt the results of that consultation.

Conversely, primary legislation, like buses, does not come along very often; the next Bill might be in another five or 10 years—it is 15 years since the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I discussed the Charities Act, and we have had probably had one since—but we need to send a signal of our support for community wealth funds. How do we balance those issues? I suggested that if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replaced “must” in his original drafting with “may”, that might provide an answer that would not force the Government, the Secretary of State and my noble friend on the Front Bench to set up a community wealth fund but would provide them with an option to do so in light of the consultation when they had the full outcome available. Since the noble Lord was kind enough to make that change, I am delighted to support his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

2: Clause 29, page 22, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under this section must specify that any organisation in receipt of a distribution of dormant account money—(a) must demonstrate that any returns to private companies or individuals are commensurate with the overall aim of delivering public good, and(b) must not be used to enhance investor returns.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a distribution of dormant assets money must be to an organisation that has an overall aim of delivering public good and must not be used to enhance investor returns.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment was triggered by remarks made in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who was the very capable Minister then who was replaced by another very capable Minister. She was very open in response to a question that had been asked quite innocently. We wanted to put in an amendment in Committee a requirement to confirm that the dormant asset money would flow to charities or recognised and formalised social enterprises.

In her response, the noble Baroness said no, that the Government wanted to make sure that the money was also available to mission-focused for-profit companies. There was general shock around the Committee, as everyone talked about the Dormant Assets Bill as providing money to charity and social enterprises, and it sent me away to Google. Perhaps others in your Lordships’ House were far less naive than I, but there is a massive business growing in the social impact arena these days, which has become very attractive to the private sector.

To give your Lordships an idea of who is coming to play in this particular arena, I will refer to one of endless websites that contain copies of similar discussions: “Mainstream venture capital … funds”—we are talking about VC funds—

“are beginning to look for a new kind of unicorn—companies that will not only provide huge financial returns”—

we are talking here about 12% returns for modest venture capital, perhaps with earlier-stage money 20% returns—

“but also create huge social impact.”

It notes London and San Francisco as two of the leading hubs for these kinds of investments.

I have no argument with a venture capitalist who puts money into social good. That is absolutely fine as far as I am concerned. But I am very concerned if that entity is seeking grants from the dormant asset fund and turning that around to enhance the returns to its investor, who is expecting a return around the 12% to 20% mark. I can see why it is extremely attractive to the for-profit company; after all, it is very hard in most circumstances for social impact to generate returns of that extraordinary size. But if there is a very significant grant coming from the dormant asset fund, one can achieve those kinds of benchmarks easily. I do not think that is the purpose that was embedded in the original Bill or the purpose which most of us who are associated with this have in mind.

The amendment is not an attempt to exclude all for-profit companies, because I understand that there are some areas where they have been very useful, for example in teaching financial literacy. It is to make sure that they are not plucking extraordinary returns as a consequence of grants from the dormant assets fund. Charities and social enterprises seeking funds and grant money may indeed find that they have some excess over the particular project that they have been working with, but their whole constitutional structure requires them to make sure that money flows back into good causes. I do not want this to turn into an opportunity for that money to flow back to large-scale investors.

As we all know, the oversight process in the Dormant Assets Bill—we will talk about this on the very last amendment—is very weak, because in the original concept the end users were going to be charities and social enterprises that were under constraint and governance of various different kinds. Therefore, an additional level of scrutiny was not a matter of significant concern. With this big expansion, and with the purposes to which the fund can be applied being essentially in the gift of the Secretary of State, this becomes a major concern.

We are all concerned about money being spent inappropriately. Nothing would be more damning to this whole process than a major scandal in which we suddenly have a newspaper describing circumstances in which money from the dormant assets fund has gone to an investor seeking very large returns. This could compromise not just that particular project but the whole programme. Frankly, I do not think that is a principle that should be allowed to proceed in this Bill, which is why I have moved this amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on her alertness in uncovering this issue, and to make a very simple comparison with something that has occupied a great deal of time in your Lordships’ House lately: the water companies, and what we have seen happen with them, with, very often, hedge fund owners involved, massive profits being taken out and massive loads of debt. This is a terribly important amendment. I regret not attaching my name to it. I certainly would have done had I been alerted to it earlier. This is terribly important, and I encourage the noble Baroness to keep pushing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for their amendment and for their vigilance and scrutiny in this area. I am grateful also for their time the other day, when we had a helpful discussion.

Amendment 2 concerns the direction of the English portion of dormant assets funding and seeks to ensure that money cannot be used purely for profit but must have public good at its heart. It is already enshrined in primary legislation that dormant assets funding must be distributed to initiatives with a social or environmental purpose. This is a clear and core function of the scheme and it remains unchanged in the Bill. The Government of course agree that private profit is not the purpose of the dormant assets scheme.

The noble Baronesses’ concerns, as expressed in the amendment and their contributions today, relate to the scheme’s current support for social investment. As I mentioned in the debate on the previous group, dormant assets funding has provided £465 million to Big Society Capital and Access over the last 10 years. During that time, social impact investing in the UK has grown almost eightfold, increasing from £830 million in 2011 to £6.4 billion now, thanks in large part to those two organisations. It is largely by leveraging private capital alongside dormant assets that the market has been able to expand in this way, providing the voluntary, community, and social enterprise sector with access to billions of pounds of investment.

To give an example, dormant assets funding enabled Big Society Capital to invest £6 million in the Fair By Design fund, which aims to eradicate the poverty premium by 2028. Fair By Design invests in several initiatives, including some businesses with considerable impact which provide services in sectors such as energy, insurance, borrowing, transport and food, to support over 340,000 people across the country. Its work has helped those people collectively to save £12 million per year on goods and services for which they were previously paying more than those who were financially better off. The scheme advances important opportunities such as this for collaborating with the private sector and civil society organisations to amplify its impact, within the boundaries of governance structures which ensure that the money is managed appropriately.

I hope I can reassure noble Lords that robust systems are in place to ensure that the money funds projects delivered by organisations that prioritise impact. As a registered charity itself, Access employs strict eligibility criteria for its funding, which ensures that money flows only to those social enterprises and charities that it was created to support. Similarly, £2.5 billion from Big Society Capital and its co-investors is being used to support over 1,500 social enterprises and charities across the country. Both organisations apply layers of due diligence to ensure that the intermediary fund managers with whom they work also have impact embedded in their approaches. Fund managers applying for Big Society Capital funding are required to present a social impact plan during the due diligence process, and Access requires its funds to be held in finance structures that cannot be used commercially.

As these existing structures have operated effectively over the past decade, we do not consider it necessary to place in primary legislation a requirement such as that proposed by Amendment 2, though we understand the concerns the noble Baronesses had and the vigilance which led them to table it. The scheme already ensures that funds go towards organisations with the overall aim of delivering public good, and we will ensure that this continues to be the case.

Ultimately, it remains the Government’s priority to afford people the opportunity to have a say in how funds are distributed in the country, including whether social investment should remain a priority. That is why we have committed to a public consultation to welcome wide-ranging views on how these funds can best have an impact on social and environmental priorities in England. Those are the reasons we cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied to withdraw it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad to have raised the issue and I will be withdrawing the amendment, but I hope very much that the point that I have made will carry through into the Government’s thinking, because this is a constantly changing field. As the Minister knows, with mission-focused companies there is nothing to say that they cannot pay their directors what they like; they can pay what salaries they like and make what returns they like to their core investors. We very much hope that in the reporting requirements that he will talk about later there will be real clarity around this issue. He can expect to find quite a number of Written Questions asking him to detail those kinds of benchmarks, so that we understand what is actually happening with this dormant assets fund. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 4 and I would gladly support Amendment 5. Government Amendment 3 is definitely an improvement on the previous situation, which was unclear; the Government were sure they would have a public consultation but were not really required to do so.

When the original Dormant Assets Bill was passed, the purposes for which dormant assets could be used were on the face of the Bill in primary legislation. Consultation, now that the Secretary of State is in a position to expand that range significantly, is absolutely vital. In Amendment 4, we reflect some of my ongoing frustrations with consultation after consultation: they fall to the attention of the usual suspects and, indeed, the responses of the usual suspects are very often taken into serious consideration, but they never get out into the wider world. When there are lots of diverse views, perhaps supported or mentioned by only small handfuls of people because they have never occurred to others, those tend to go into the “dismiss” bucket almost immediately.

I know how difficult it is to structure a consultation that really does consult. I say that from the position of having been a Minister during the coalition years, when I wanted to use a consultation to bring in new ideas as well as to get people’s responses to possible avenues that we might go down. It was a sheer battle with my own staff to devise such a consultation and questionnaire and to leave space for open responses and gather them in. It is not the norm; I am very well aware of that. I do want to press the Minister, because this should be going to a much wider range of groups than might normally keep an eye open for a consultation —the wide range of social enterprises and charities that go out to various communities, particularly deprived communities. Those communities tend to be the least alert to the fact that there is a government consultation happening or to knowing how to respond to it.

Then there is Parliament. Most of us understand that secondary legislation is not worth the paper it is written on in terms of getting parliamentary opinion or any potential for amendment, so it is important that the relevant committees of Parliament are engaged with something as significant as this. I press the Minister: we understand that he has moved some way, but we need quality. The style is perhaps there but there is no quality or content behind it to give us full reassurance. If he will not accept Amendments 4 and 5, can he at least give us a verbal assurance of the kind of quality that we want within the consultation itself?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I was reassured by my noble friend’s introductory speech and the deal that has been hacked out between him and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has, in part, shot my fox because I wanted to talk about the usual suspects, which she referred to. That is the danger, although I say to the signatories to Amendment 4 that it looks to me like a pretty good list of usual suspects in that amendment. I was not sure that we were not just going back down the track that we were trying to avoid going down.

My reason for supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was to make sure that we would make a big effort to get down to the smaller organisations, which often had unique insights into the problems of a particular area. From my point of view, I rather doubt whether that goes well into legislation, but it is the sort of area where a good strong ministerial Statement, given on the Floor, would reassure a lot of us that there will be words that we can go back to if the consultation does not reach as far, as deep and as wide as some of us think it should.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

6: Clause 29, page 22, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) An order under this section may not be made unless the Secretary of State has certified that dormant account money will be used to fund projects, or aspects of project, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by a Government department.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to certify that dormant assets money would be additional to, and not replacing, Government spending.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment deals with additionality. It was the intent of the original Bill, which placed a responsibility on the Big Lottery Fund alone to ensure that the moneys were additional to expenditures that one would expect a government department to make; I assume that means any level of department, including local authorities. That seems to be a fundamental concept which sits behind the dormant assets fund. In our early discussions, the Government constantly confirmed that the principle of additionality was an immovable one for this Act.

One should always spend some time looking at government websites. I was slightly surprised to find a government announcement from June 2021 of financial support for voluntary community and social enterprises, to enable them to respond to the coronavirus. This was a very good thing which I have no criticism of; however, according to the announcement:

“The government has pledged £750 million to ensure VCSE can continue their vital work supporting the country during the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, including £200 million for the Coronavirus Community Support Fund, along with an additional £150 million from dormant bank and building society accounts”.


In other words, that means dormant asset funds. Technically, this does not say that the Government have said to the folks at the dormant asset funds, “We want £150 million from you to support this activity, because we don’t really want to put in more than £750 million”, but it is a very grey area. Anyone reading this would assume that the Government were announcing what they would regard as the use of funds under their control.

I am very concerned, because additionality can be a very grey area. What should be the responsibility of the local authority of a particular government department? What should be the add-on which comes from the dormant assets fund, with its focus on supporting the additionality that is provided by the charity and social enterprise sectors? Therefore, I have very quickly drafted an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to certify that as far as he knows, the additionality principle is in play. I am slightly surprised that the Government have not said, “The Secretary of State only wants this to be additionality and is delighted to sign a piece of paper confirming that this is how the money will be used.”

That is the rationale behind this important amendment. From the announcement I read a moment ago, it is not difficult to see that the creep across the boundary is relatively easy. The initial dormant assets fund was under £1 billion. The new assets that will be brought into scope as a consequence of this Bill amount to a minimum of an additional £2 billion. As expansion goes beyond that, that number will keep increasing, so we are talking about very large amounts of money. The Treasury could view this as an opportunity to constrain public sector debt or to enhance particular spending programmes.

It is very important that we get an assurance from the Minister that this amendment is not needed, otherwise, it will be necessary for me to press it. I have been listening to the response from the Minister, but my noble friend Lady Barker, who is a specialist in this field and far more expert than I, will be the person who is really listening. I will see whether she is satisfied—if not, I will ask the House to pronounce on something that I believe is fundamental.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an important topic. It took quite a bit of our time in Committee, has been raised again today and runs as a thread through our concerns. We have had some discussion with the Minister between stages, and useful discussion it was.

We acknowledge that additionality has been built into Amendment 7 in the next group, but we are very sympathetic to the call from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Barker, for the Secretary of State to certify as part of the regulation-making process that funds will indeed be on top of existing government commitments. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has made quite a compelling argument. Dormant assets are going to grow. There are many other sources of dormant assets not included within the current scheme. I could see a hungry Treasury, worried about the supply of funds in the future, seeking to make use of substitute funding from dormant assets. I think we will need to be thoroughly convinced by the words of the Minister this afternoon if he is to avoid us having a further Division.

If the Government have no plans to pull accounting tricks, I would have thought that there was no issue with accepting this amendment or perhaps introducing a new text either at Third Reading or when the Bill moves to the House of Commons to put this issue beyond doubt. That is what I am listening for this afternoon and hoping to hear from the noble Lord.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Barker, for tabling Amendment 6 on the additionality principle. I also thank the noble Baronesses for their time in the productive discussion that we had on this issue. I hope that during the course of my remarks I can reassure them and other noble Lords that the intentions of this amendment are sufficiently covered both in the 2008 Act and through the Government’s Amendment 7, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, just alluded.

The principle of additionality has successfully under- pinned the scheme since its inception and will continue to be a core principle of its distribution across the UK. In line with the proposed wording in Amendment 6, the 2008 Act already describes additionality as the

“principle that dormant account money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by … a Government department”

or devolved Administration. Therefore, the principle as defined by this amendment is already enshrined in legislation.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Can I just ask for some clarification? Does not that responsibility apply only to the one distributive entity—to the Big Lottery Fund, or whatever it is called—and very conspicuously not to any other distribution sources or to the Secretary of State?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Without having the 2008 Act in front of me as well as the Bill, I am afraid that I may not be able to give the noble Baroness the speedy response that she seeks.

I shall address the point that she also raised—while seeking an answer, if I can give her a definitive answer now—about the £150 million that was released last June. As she noted, the scheme released £150 million of dormant assets funding to support the response to the Covid-19 pandemic and recovery across England. That was distributed by the four spend organisations in line with the 2008 Act. In this instance, it is important to note that the funding was entirely separate from the UK-wide charity support package of £750 million, which was announced in April 2020.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

The reference is in Schedule 3 to the 2008 Act—on page 24—under Part 3, headed “Reports and Accounts”, where it says in paragraph 9(3), in relation to the Big Lottery Fund:

“The report shall set out the Fund’s policy and practice in relation to the principle that dormant account money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by”—


and then it lists

“a Government department … the Welsh Ministers … the Scottish Ministers, or … a Northern Ireland department”.

That does not appear to apply to anything other than the Big Lottery Fund. When the 2008 Act went through, the only distribution entity was the Big Lottery Fund. There are now three others, and the new Bill anticipates potentially creating more distributors, whose responsibilities will be directed by the Secretary of State.

I fully accept that, in the original concept and structure of the Act, additionality was a fundamental underlying principle. That does not appear to have carried over into the expansion that is embedded in the new Bill. That is my concern.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that, and I hope that what I go on to say will address that point. If there is a change in distributor or an additional distributor is established, there are already powers in the 2008 Act to amend the legislation to ensure that any new or additional distributor must similarly report on their policy and practice in relation to the additionality principle. The noble Baroness is very welcome to intervene again, if I have not addressed her point.

The question to consider is not about the definition of additionality but where the accountability for that principle should lie. We fully support all the points raised in Committee regarding the fundamental importance of ensuring that the principle is adhered to, but we believe that how the 2008 Act positions the additionality principle, plus the new provisions in government Amendment 7, is the right approach to ensuring this and I welcome the opportunity to clarify why.

The Labour Government which brought in the 2008 legislation ensured that the accountability for the additionality principle lies with the named distributor responsible for all the funds across the UK, rather than the Secretary of State. This Government agree that it remains the most appropriate place for its inclusion in primary legislation. As we outlined in Committee, Schedule 3 to the 2008 Act requires the National Lottery Community Fund, the current distributor of dormant assets funding across the UK, to set out in its annual report its policy and practice in relation to the additionality principle. These reports must be laid before Parliament, and this Bill does not change that requirement. In fact, Amendment 7, to which we will come in a moment, seeks to bolster this further by requiring additionality to be included in periodic reports of the scheme’s effectiveness, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, noted. Your Lordships’ House will continue to have the opportunity to scrutinise how the National Lottery Community Fund approaches this in practice. This will ensure that funding continues to be directed to causes which fulfil the scheme’s objectives while being additional to central or devolved government funds.

As has been noted, the principle as it stands is critical to the scheme’s success, and our partners in industry have made it clear that their participation is reliant on it. As this is not central government funding, and as the Government have limited control over only the English portion, it is appropriate that the primary accountability for the principle should sit with the UK-wide distributor of the funding and its accounting officer—namely, the National Lottery Community Fund. Indeed, the fund is well versed in making this assessment, as an additionality principle also applies to its other portfolio of funds. To date, there has never been a breach of this principle of which the Government are aware.

We feel there is no evidence that the principle needs to be altered, and we believe the current approach is serving the scheme well. It has been upheld for 10 years, and we do not think it necessary or desirable to significantly change a demonstrably successful approach.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Is the Minister saying he is making a commitment from the Floor that, when additional distributors are added—and this Bill contemplates that —they will be put under the same additionality requirement as the Big Lottery Fund?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

The commitment is already made in the 2008 Act. If there is a change in distributor, or if an additional distributor is established— and I should stress that there are currently no plans for that—there are already powers in the 2008 Act to amend the legislation to ensure that any new or additional distributor must similarly report on their policy and practice in relation to the additionality principle.

However, we have responded to the noble Baroness’s desire to see the Secretary of State more specifically held accountable to the principle, and we have reinforced its importance even further by including it within Amendment 7, which we will come on to shortly, on reviewing the scheme and reporting to Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said in Committee:

“We must also be able to work out from all the reporting that we do get to see that the principle of additionality is being adhered to.”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; col. GC 9.]

We thoroughly agree, which is why our Amendment 7 will ensure that the report must include any policies and practices of the principle by the Secretary of State as well as the National Lottery Community Fund. This provision responds to requests made by noble Lords that the Secretary of State should be held more expressly accountable for ensuring that and explaining how dormant assets funding is used in ways that are genuinely additional to central Government expenditure. This demonstrates our ongoing commitment to ensuring that the principle continues to be honoured, including the ways in which funding flows to distributing bodies and on to beneficiaries.

That is why we cannot accept the amendment. I hope I have reassured the noble Baronesses that we understand their concerns, and that is why we have brought forward the additionality provision in our review and reporting amendment, Amendment 7. I can see the noble Baroness is rightly consulting the 2008 Act for the references to it. I hope on that basis she will be content with what we have proposed and content to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I want to add just a word or two. My noble friend Lady Barker said that the Oversight Trust had relatively few staff; my understanding is that it has one staff member. I have great respect for the trustees; they are highly capable, totally dedicated people. But resource matters when you are dealing with a complex world. The original oversight body was designed to cope with a situation in which the amount of money in play was relatively small—under £1 billion—and the primary recipients of the end funds were going to be charities and social enterprises. The Charity Commission is involved in the disciplinary process, and there are clear structures that social enterprises have to follow if they are formally to be social enterprises.

We now all accept that the Government consider that the language allows for-profit companies to be recipients of the funds, provided they are mission focused—although nobody can tell me what mission focused looks like. If you are looking at the statutes of a particular company, there is no formal constraint on what is paid to directors in the form of salaries, no definition of acceptable returns to the original investors, and new distributors can be added. We are talking now about a pool of assets of a minimum of £2 billion, and that is just stage 1—it could easily expand to £4 billion, £7 billion, £8 billion or even £10 billion as more and more entities or organisations are captured within the scope of those eligible to provide dormant assets to the fund.

This is an attempt to ask the Government to set up a structured review to make sure that the Oversight Trust has the capacity that it needs, recognising the significant increase in complexity and responsibility. That is not in any way to denigrate anybody who is involved today with the Oversight Trust. I do not know how they do it, frankly, with one staff person. The time has come for expansion of this group, and what we are listening for from the Government is real recognition of the importance of detailed oversight.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, our colleagues on the Lib Dem Benches have made a pretty compelling case here. It is obviously good that we have the Oversight Trust but, with a staff complement of one, anything it does will be light touch. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, makes quite a lot of sense in terms of reviewing arrangements and determining whether further legislation is needed to improve its effectiveness. For that reason, we happily support this amendment.

If the Minister cannot accept the amendment as drafted, perhaps he can explain to the House how the matter is to be kept under review, and how the Oversight Trust can be strengthened to ensure that it does its work, because, clearly, oversight is very important in all of this. We need to have that assurance and guarantee that things are as they should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

As the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, have said, Amendment 9 has been tabled with a view to ensuring that the Oversight Trust is appropriately resourced and empowered to monitor the distribution of dormant assets funding. The DCMS and the National Lottery Community Fund have worked closely with a range of partners to ensure that the right levels of accountability and transparency are in place for the organisations that are given the task of distributing dormant assets money in England. We have sought to support their independence while respecting that dormant assets funding is money which comes from the public.

The four spend organisations’ operations are regularly reviewed by the Oversight Trust, which, as the noble Baroness said, is an independent organisation that ensures accountability and transparency in each of the spend organisations’ activities. I should flag that the trust’s reviews are not conducted in-house; it commissions external experts to conduct them independently. The Oversight Trust does not intervene in day-to-day operations, which are of course the responsibility of the organisations’ boards; rather, its aim is to ensure that each remains true to its objectives, which involves having oversight of the general operations of the spend organisations, as referred to in subsection (2)(a) of the new clause proposed in the amendment. In particular, the Oversight Trust is required to ensure that the four organisations are well governed and that their strategic plans and budgets are in accordance with their objects; and to review their achievement of social impact and transparency of financial and impact reporting.

Those powers are formalised in legally binding governance contracts between the Oversight Trust and each organisation. These contracts empower the Oversight Trust, for example, to remove directors in the case of significant mismanagement; to approve any changes to remuneration policies; and to be involved in the process of appointing new chairpersons, including ratifying their formal appointment. The contracts set out the key processes to enable the Oversight Trust to fulfil these responsibilities, and the trust may make reasonable requests from each spend organisation, in addition to those set out in the governance arrangements, if necessary, to help it meet its obligations.

The Oversight Trust receives quarterly updates, conducts annual deep dives and publishes quadrennial reviews on each organisation, which is required to co-operate to ensure that it can perform its duties effectively. This includes a commitment to participate with the independent review panel and to provide any information and assistance that may be necessary. We therefore do not believe it would be necessary or appropriate to provide the Oversight Trust with further powers in legislation for it to perform its current mandate effectively.

Access to up to £500,000 per annum from the English portion ensures that it can draw on sufficient resources to fulfil these important objectives. We are confident that this enables the Oversight Trust to meet its objectives, but we continue to keep that under review. Last year the Oversight Trust published its first quadrennial review, which focused on Big Society Capital, with the review of Access following in June this year. The next review, which will be of Fair4All Finance, is due next year.

I am very glad that the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to meet the Oversight Trust. Since Committee, my noble friend Lady Barran has met the trust as well, to press the importance of in-depth quantitative impact data. The trust has been working with the four organisations that it oversees on this issue, including through its annual governance review meetings. The trust provides robust governance, transparency and accountability over the four organisations’ use of dormant assets funding in England. As ever, though, we are mindful of our commitment to consult widely and with an open mind about the best social or environmental uses of this money.

When the Government consider the outcome of this consultation, we will also need to determine the best approach to ensuring continued good governance over the scheme. This could include asking the Oversight Trust to consider expanding its role to oversee any additional bodies if necessary and appropriate. If so, we would review whether the trust would need additional resources to fulfil a broader remit. It is worth noting that the trust would not be involved in decisions around what, if any, new distributing bodies may be chosen in England.

As it is too early to pre-empt the outcome of that assessment and, given that the Oversight Trust is independent and not an arm’s-length body, I hope the noble Baronesses will agree that it would be inappropriate in the Bill to mandate its role in the way that the amendment suggests. However, we have included a requirement to report on the uses of dormant assets funding as part of the Government’s Amendment 7. The National Lottery Community Fund will also remain responsible for ensuring that funds are distributed in line with legislation. We hope that this, alongside our record to date in ensuring that the distribution of funds is appropriately monitored, will provide the noble Baronesses with reassurance that this is an area that we will continue to take very seriously.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

While the Minister is on his feet, could he tell me with a straight face whether he thinks that £500,000 a year is sufficient for the wide range of responsibilities that he just described? He might wish to talk to some of his colleagues who work in the world of consultancy.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

We do; we keep it under review and, if the oversight trust took on a broader role, would review whether it would need additional resources. For the reasons I have set out, we cannot accept Amendment 9, and I hope the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw it.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to speak in support of Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts—not least because, as he said, I was a member of the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, which he so ably chaired.

I must admit, it is only recently that I have been made aware of the campaign for a community wealth fund and that I have joined the APPG for “Left Behind” Neighbourhoods. However, I have been persuaded by the evidence from the Local Trust and others that a community wealth fund—or, to take on board what the noble Lord said, perhaps community wealth funds—potentially represents a key building block in the aspiration, shared across the political divide, to build back better or, as Sir Michael Marmot put it, to build back fairer.

In his new report, The Marmot Review 10 Years On, Sir Michael emphasised this:

“Empowering and sustaining communities was central to the 2010 Marmot Review”—


his original review of health inequalities. He also observed:

“Over the last 10 years, these ignored communities and areas have seen vital physical and community assets lost, resources and funding reduced, community and voluntary sector services decimated and public services cut”.


Both in his report and in his Covid update, he called for investment

“in the development of economic, social and cultural resources in the most deprived communities.”

In a similar vein, as I noted at Second Reading, a number of bodies, including the Legatum Institute, have argued the importance of social investment to the levelling-up agenda. According to a recent survey published by NPC, the general public believe that levelling up must address social needs, and just yesterday, the Education Select Committee referenced the idea of a community wealth fund when discussing the implications of the levelling-up agenda for education and children’s outcomes.

While dormant assets, as underlined at Second Reading and in line with the additionality principle, must of course not be used as a substitute for government funding, the idea of community wealth funds as proposed in this amendment provides an opportunity for “empowering and sustaining communities”, to quote Marmot. It would be targeted at a very specific group of communities or neighbourhoods: those in which serious deprivation is combined with lack of social infrastructure, or what Community Links calls “civic inequality”. In its recent report Making a Good Place, Community Links concludes:

“The case for investment in social infrastructure is strong, not just because of the long-term benefits that it brings and the need to address civic inequalities, but also because of the pressing situation created by the Covid-19 pandemic, which makes it all the more important to create good places that promote good mental and physical health and well-being and resilience to other attacks.”


According to Local Trust, which spearheaded the campaign for a CWF, in its experience communities lacking in places to meet and social infrastructure, such as youth centres—so it does include support for young people—pubs, cafes, parks and community hubs, can find it difficult to nurture the social interactions and bonds that play an essential part in developing a community’s civic spirit. The trust argues that investment in social infrastructure is foundational in that it helps to build knowledge, skills and confidence in marginalised communities, thereby contributing to a lasting legacy of change. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, what is important is the knowledge of continuity of funding that one does not necessarily get from local philanthropy.

As a report from the IPPR Environmental Justice Commission shows, this can strengthen environmental as well as social action in deprived communities. The commission argues:

“For communities to thrive in a climate changing world they must be given greater ownership and agency”.


As I said at Second Reading, in a point that has already been made, a particularly attractive aspect of the CWF is the emphasis its advocates place on the control over spending decisions that it would give to local residents. I quoted the Public Services Committee, which has consistently made the case for user involvement in the development of services if those services are to meet local needs and to be resilient.

There is growing recognition that failure to embed genuine community involvement is one reason why past local-area initiatives have not been as successful as they might have been. To quote Community Links again:

“Community participation in decision-making ensures that investment genuinely serves those it aims to support and also helps build capacity within the community”.


The proposals for a CWF contain detailed suggestions for how this could be done and how to build accountability into its structures. That perhaps goes some way to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, as to why this kind of structure is necessary: it perhaps adds something to what is there already.

Polling research carried out for Local Trust and its experience of running the Big Local programme suggest there is a real appetite in deprived communities to take on the challenge, provided there is appropriate funding and support to build capacity and confidence. Research in so-called left-behind areas found that three-fifths agreed that local residents have the capacity to make real change in their area, while seven out of 10 said it should be local people and community organisations leading decisions about how any funding should be spent.

The release of new dormant assets under the Bill provides a timely opportunity to invest in such areas through proposed community wealth funds, which, as we have heard, have the support of over 420 organisations, including the NCVO, and 35 local or combined authorities. Again, the fact that it has such strong support from the voluntary sector, the NCVO and others perhaps goes some way to counter the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.

While I am not looking to pre-empt the consultation that we will discuss shortly, I hope the Minister will be able to give us some idea of the Government’s views about the proposal for community wealth funds as an appropriate use of a portion of the dormant assets that will be released. At Second Reading, despite it having been raised by a number of noble Lords, I think she carefully avoided commenting on it. I hope she will be able to provide a sympathetic response that will give hope to the 423 organisations in the community wealth fund alliance, and to those living in the deprived communities that stand to benefit from such funds.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, there is a clause stand part element to this group and I shall address it first as it has not been the subject of discussion. It is important to make the point that Clause 29 removes the requirement to focus on the needs of young people, financial education, access to finance and social investment from primary legislation and puts the responsibility for the areas of focus into future secondary legislation—I know that the current rules stay in place until the first SI comes. That is a troubling issue that Parliament has to consider because we all know that statutory instruments cannot be amended and that killing them is a constitutional crisis, so Clause 29 asks us to change the framework very substantially, and that is an area that Parliament has to consider.

I do not mean to be insulting to the Government, but cronyism is a real worry—frankly it is a worry with any Government—as are fads and fancies. They are not ill intentioned but they tend to mean that attention diverts from one place to another and lacks long-term consistency. It is very hard to deal with in secondary legislation. Will the Minister discuss whom she anticipates will be the winners and losers when we make this change and remove these various obligations from primary legislation? We really do need to know.

A great deal spills on to the consultation process, which the Minister will no doubt mention. We shall deal with that in another group, but I point out now that, although I am sure the Minister will talk about public consultation, it is not in the legislation. There are a lot of issues to deal with around that.

I now turn to Amendment 54, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which I was glad to sign. I hope it is just that the drafters of the Bill wrote a badly constructed sentence and that the transparency that we would have hoped for is intended. Given the number of government amendments, I suspect the Bill has suffered from some rather rushed drafting, and if there is a government amendment to sort this sentence out, I would not object and I am sure no other Member of the Committee would.

The heart of the discussion today has been the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, supported by many others, for the specific inclusion of a community wealth fund. I can see scope for very good work here, but I have heard three concerns, some expressed here, and I want to pick up on them quickly. My noble friend Lady Barker talked towards one of them, but she did not explicitly mention it. It is about the character of the dormant assets fund. It is not an endowment fund. The numbers in the dormant assets fund are large because we were capturing 10, 15 or perhaps even 20 years of dormant assets that had been sitting around and were unspent. I reckon that dormant assets from banks and building societies are fairly close to exhaustion now. There will be new ones every year, but the bulk of dormant assets have already gone through the system. We are now drawing in more assets but they will follow the same pattern, and we may find future assets to put into the fund.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made the point that you can create something very successful and provide it with funding that can last for five years but, if it has no sustainable funding beyond that point, one is in something of a bind. I am not sure that many people have realised the character of the dormant assets fund. The point is that it should be exhausted and driven down to as close to zero as soon as possible by a combination of reclaim and the paying out of money. It cannot be replenished and continually provide support for many of the community wealth funds in the way that has been described. Sadly, there has to be some real thinking about how all that would work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 57. The essence of the case has already been well covered so I shall be brief, but brevity should not be taken as indicating that I do not attach considerable importance to this amendment.

The Committee will recall that, a couple of minutes ago when I was moving an earlier amendment, I emphasised the need for local views to be taken into account and the fact that, to be effective, “local” must mean precisely that. It is charities and voluntary groups, which are often quite small, that can speak most authoritatively about the needs of their local areas and communities, hence the first part of this amendment. It is obvious that the groups that are the likely recipients of funding under the scheme will have the most relevant first-hand experience or views about how the scheme is or should be operating.

There is a danger, of course. I fully accept that trying to discern what local communities really want is not always easy and may require particular effort. That is why there is a temptation to fall back on what I referred to a few minutes ago as gatekeepers. While many gatekeepers are absolutely fine, we need to ensure that those who are holding themselves out are sufficiently well plugged in to the detail.

In that connection, I re-emphasise the point I made—it was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, a minute ago—that the concept of community wealth funds are relatively unknown and therefore, to get a proper consultation on how they might work, the Government are going to have to do a bit of pitch rolling, if I may use a cricketing analogy, to ensure that the contributors to the consultation process have a full understanding of what they are being asked to respond about. Having said that, Amendment 57 seems likely to provide the objectives to be fulfilled, which is why it has my support.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, as I think this is her first outing in a Grand Committee in the House of Lords, and she is basically doing it in a prison visitors’ set-up. We probably feel like that sometimes here. She made the absolutely key statement: that consultation needs to be meaningful. That certainly underpins everything that I have to say.

I am exceedingly troubled by the very narrow list of consultees in the Bill. The Minister talks about the public, but has felt it really important not to put public consultation in the legislation. We really need an understanding of why she is so determined that the public will not appear in that consultation list. Obviously a Secretary of State who thinks it appropriate can do so, but it is not inherently appropriate in the way that the Bill is drafted. That really is important and it needs to be justified.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, talked about the importance of including charities more broadly. I would add social enterprises. The noble Lord also pointed out the significance of local views.

It may be that I am an old cynic but I deal with a lot of consultations, particularly in the finance sector—they tend to be HMRC or Treasury-driven—and I am extremely conscious that a handful of voices get listened to. They are the sort of recognised powerhouses, the usual suspects and whatever else. Everybody else might get a little answer to one particular point that they make but very rarely—in fact, never within the field that I have covered—have I seen anybody other than that central core of usual suspects have any significant impact on the outcome, and lead to a different approach as a consequence of the consultation. I am extremely troubled by the way in which all this is currently structured and by its essential identification of only one big usual suspect: the Big Lottery Fund. Frankly, it is not fair to the Big Lottery Fund to make it carry that full burden alone, in the way that has been done.

My Amendment 58, also signed by my noble friend Lady Barker, was tabled because I am spitting tacks generally at the way that there is no role for Parliament in these consultations. From the many exchanges I have had with HM Treasury I know that, when there is a consultation, regulators take exactly the same point of view: that any parliamentarian is welcome to write in. Well, first, you do not find many parliamentarians with the time to develop and do all that but, secondly, they are not among the usual suspects who ever get seriously considered. It is not worth the candle most of the time and I have no reason to think that any other department will be very different in its attitude.

The first time that parliamentarians will have any impact will thus be in the useless process of dealing with a statutory instrument that they cannot amend or kill. This seems fundamentally disrespectful to Parliament. In an area such as this, we are essentially looking at Parliament in many ways as the guardian of people’s money that they have somehow missed or lost, or whatever else, so it is even more important that there should be that much wider voice speaking.

In Amendment 58, which is slightly hopeful, I have popped in a requirement to engage directly with Parliament. This problem will have to be resolved because consultation is increasingly becoming the substitute for scrutiny and accountability. It is not designed to do that in the way that it is structured at the moment.

I will pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. It is quite shocking that we do not even have a reliable framework now for a consultation: it is back to departmental discretion. That is not appropriate. It is highlighted again in the Bill and, for all these reasons, I find this very troubling. We need a justification from the Government on their approach to consultation, and the answer is not: “In this instance, we’ve decided to do something very broad and general, so be happy”. Why is it in no way captured within the legislation itself?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Kramer]

60: Clause 29, page 21, line 29, at end insert—
“(5) Any distribution of dormant assets money provided for under this section must be additional funding, and must not replace funds previously provided for by the Government.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that any distribution of dormant assets money must be additional funding.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Grand Committee has certainly more than touched on the topic of additionality in previous groups of amendments, but I felt it was important to table a specific amendment. I am not at all precious about its wording; I just wanted to make sure that it got discussed directly.

From the beginning of the legislative process—even ahead of it, when she was kind enough to brief us—the Minister has spoken about the importance of the principle of additionality and reassured noble Lords that that principle would sit behind the dormant assets fund. I had a look to see where this is in the legislation. I am not the best comber of legislation so I would be delighted if the Minister were able to enlighten me if I have got it wrong. I can find a reference to additionality in the statues of the Big Lottery Fund; I can find it again in the 2019-22 management agreement between DCMS and the Big Lottery Fund. However, in the 2008 Act, which is entirely consistent with those two items, I only found it in the reporting and accounts requirements in part 3 of Schedule 3, which says:

“The report shall set out the Fund’s policy and practice in relation to the principle that dormant account money should be used to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by … a Government department”


and the various devolved Administrations. Have I missed something? I cannot read anywhere that it is a requirement on the department or the Government to ensure that the structure is such that additionality is a fundamental principle. Have I missed it? Is it somewhere in the legislation and I have gone past it? If I have, I am very willing, and will be quite relieved, to be corrected.

The Bill in front of the Committee will allow other organisations to become major distributors, not just the Big Lottery Fund. Is the additionality principle particular for that fund? Will it be applied to other distributors? It seems that the issue is not discussed in any way. I am used to legislation in which, basically, Parliament empowers and instructs the Government to adhere to certain principles, and I cannot see that it is in here. If somebody can help me with that, I would be very grateful. As I have just described, the principle also has a sting in it. As I quoted before, it is

“to fund projects, or aspects of projects, for which funds would be unlikely to be made available by”

the Government. One can see the temptation to blur lines.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I have no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the mover, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I am grateful to everybody who has spoken. Obviously, the Minister is trying to give me some reassurance, but it has not taken me all the way, I have to confess. Although the additionality principle is in the Bill, it is there only in the context of shaping the work of the Big Lottery Fund; it is not there in the shape of a fundamental principle that applies, necessarily, if the Big Lottery Fund were to become one of several bodies managing distribution, for example, or if there were to be a different route for distribution. It is not sitting at that fundamental level; it is sitting at least one arm’s length away. So, I continue to have that concern.

I fully accept that the Minister has given some very good examples of additionality, but if she would care to look again at the GOV.UK website, to which I drew her attention when we were discussing some of these issues earlier in the week, it is a stretch to imagine that the additionality principle is applying to the £150 million from dormant bank and building society accounts involved in providing support to charities as a consequence of the Covid epidemic. Indeed, the way the Government discuss it—running it in with their own £750 million of additional funding—makes it very clear that they see this as a single programme, and express themselves very naturally and honestly in that way. There is a real question: do we say, “In extremis, forget the additionality principle”, in which case that ought to be acknowledged up front? Or do we say, “It’s always been a fairly weak principle and rather blurred; we have some good examples, but it is not something we are really going to press”? A lot of understanding needs to come from that.

When we go through a new Act, of course, Covid is at the front of our minds now, but I very much hope that in a matter of time it will not be and we will be back to normal procedures. We really need to know how the Bill will operate when it becomes an Act, because it will continue into that future period. So, I raised the issue of additionality and I think we could use some better answers. I absolutely still do not understand why it is not written in such a way that it applies to the government department’s actions. That is just beyond me, because I have certainly seen the Government draft similar constraints for other government departments in other areas, and I have certainly seen them accept amendments that do the same kind of thing. It just strikes me as a bit peculiar to see the way it has been handled here. I think all of us are concerned that it should be a tight ship and not a leaky one. Saying all that, I will, of course, withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Enterprise, at whose recent AGM I had the pleasure of listening to the Minister address the subject that we are coming to now. I admit that one of the reasons why I wanted to table this amendment was that, up until approximately an hour ago, the Committee had had very little discussion on social enterprises. We had, naturally, tended to focus on community groups and voluntary sector organisations and that is the trouble; social enterprises are always getting lost in discussions such as this. They also get lost when we come to talk about industrial strategy and so on. I wanted to focus some attention back on them because the dormant assets funding that has been released so far into the Big Society Capital fund and the Access foundation has been really important. It has helped more than 5,000 social enterprises since 2010, dormant assets worth £460 million have been put through social investment, and it has directly supported more than 1,500 organisations. It will be pleasing to some noble Lords that the vast majority—82%—of those organisations have been outside London, so the investment has been going into communities which are, by definition, less wealthy.

Social Enterprise UK, whose chair is the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, is currently investigating the impact of that, but we know that it is still difficult for social enterprises to access finance and that access to what finance exists is uneven. There is a particular deficiency in support for some minority ethnic organisations. It has always been the case that women and people from minority communities in any walk of life or business have had more difficulty than others in accessing capital. The biggest problem has been access to what is known as patient risk capital—long-term investments—for social enterprises. Dormant assets are exactly what would work for that.

That is the background to my amendment, which seeks to do two things. One is to limit the beneficiaries of the dormant assets scheme to charities and social enterprises. The reason for this is that, as the primary purpose of this legislation moves away from Parliament and down through departments, and given the experience of a year ago, when we watched the Government scrabbling to find money down the back of departmental sofas to put towards the voluntary and community sector, there is a feeling out there that we have to protect these funds from temporary political exigencies. We particularly need to protect against the creation of new vehicles, some of which may be companies, in an attempt to deliver the agreed main outputs of this fund.

Secondly, my amendment would limit the distributing bodies to being charities or social enterprises. We have already seen the emergence into that field of one entity which is not a charity or social enterprise. My noble friend Lady Kramer, who comes from the banking profession, has in previous discussions noted that if colleagues in her former profession were to see a profitable avenue to go down, they might well develop a new arm to do that. In the scope of banking it is not a massive amount of money, but we are talking about billions of pounds of assets.

It is for those reasons that I have tabled this amendment, and it is those issues that I wish to test in discussion. I therefore beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because my noble friend Lady Barker has basically laid out the case. I suspect that it was thought a given by everybody in 2008 that the money would go to charities and social enterprises; it probably never occurred to them to do anything else. We live in a much more varied world these days, so it would seem to make sense to add the clarity which the amendment seeks.

When we considered some of the amendments on who should be consulted, they talked about charities. There is a tendency to forget the social enterprise sector and the crucial role it plays. It is a rapidly growing role. I was stunned to learn of the findings of a survey recently conducted by Social Enterprise UK to work out the size of its sector. It started off with the assumption that it was a sector of around £24 billion and discovered that it was one of around £60 billion. An awful lot gets missed and somehow goes under the radar. We need to make sure that attention is appropriately drawn. The amendment is successful in doing that.

As we move into the post-Covid world, we will need to pull all the good levers that we have. That means the social enterprise lever as well as the charitable lever. Making sure that the language matches the reality strikes me as significant and useful. I hope that the points that my noble friend has made will be taken on board. Sometimes it is important to make things explicit, particularly in legislation. I cannot think that it constrains the Government in any way that they would find unacceptable, but it may ring the bell of DCMS when it does the consultation to think, “One of the usual suspects we need to go and listen to is going to be in the social enterprise world; it won’t just be in the big charities world”. Sometimes, we have to do something to make sure those messages get through.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Although the amendment forms a different group, it certainly speaks to a number of the issues raised in previous debates over the past few days in Grand Committee. I am glad that the amendment is before us, because it shines a light on something very important in respect of social enterprises.

At Second Reading, I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raising several concerns about the Government’s approach to the dormant assets scheme, including about the long-term viability of projects and whether enough is being done to support social enterprises. She has just restated those concerns. Social enterprises are a crucial part of our economy, as they bring together those dual goals in respect of business but also social in a particular way that enhances our communities.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to crave the indulgence of the Grand Committee in trying to hang on to my fast-disappearing status as a new, inexperienced Member: I wanted to provide an opportunity for a debate on Clause 1, on the overview of the scheme, and I was going to do that by stand part or by putting down an amendment—but I got the timetable wrong and I failed to do so. However, other people have come to my aid, in that there will be sufficient opportunities later in the Bill’s progress to raise the issues that I would have raised here had I got my act together.

I will mention the main issues that I have in mind. Of course, I mentioned them at Second Reading, but the ability to repeat points seems to be one of the great assets of this process that we go through. The first issue that I will come back to at an appropriate time is the whole structure that leads to this situation. We can have a lot of discussion about the process of the dormant assets scheme, but we need to address the question of why dormant assets appear in the first place. It would be wrong to have a full debate on the scheme without at least reflecting, to some extent, on that issue.

In the government consultation and in preceding debates that led to the Bill there has been a lot of discussion by various people about what the financial institutions are doing to make sure that this issue does not arise. In general terms, there has been a lot of discussion of that issue—well, perhaps not a lot—but I am not sure that it really gets anywhere. Everyone expresses intentions, but how detailed the planning is to avoid it happening is a separate issue.

However, I think there is a stage before that. Why do we have a structure that leads to this sort of end result? The fact that this can happen is something that bears investigation—not just because it has happened but what we can do about it—as does the extent to which the financial institutions seem, in one way or another, to try to shift the blame to individuals. There are questions about what we can we do so that it does not happen in the first place, and I will come back to that at a later stage, possibly this afternoon—and I will try not to repeat myself too much.

The other issue is additionality. There has not been nearly enough discussion of what exactly is meant by additionality; there is no clear structure as to how it is defined. I will take the opportunity at a later stage to raise and discuss that issue as well. So I am really just putting these issues on the table and saying that, at the appropriate time, I will raise them at a later stage of the process.

Since I am here and speaking, I will ask something. The Bill was published effectively only a few days ago, yet we end up with this extensive raft of minor technical amendments, which makes the job of understanding what the Bill is doing extremely difficult—twice or three times as difficult. The grid that we have been supplied with for today’s session is extremely useful, but getting it only an hour before the meeting reduces its value. If I had been quick, I would have ticked off which amendments fall into which of the groups that the Minister has identified. It would have been helpful if we had had it earlier and the different groups had been identified on that list. Perhaps we could have that in arrears, as it were.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief. As the Minister has said, these are highly technical amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I am frustrated by so many amendments of a highly technical nature and confess that I have been unable to spend the time to get on top of the impact of those changes. I am therefore wholly reliant on the Government’s definition of them. Even my noble friend Lady Bowles was floored by this number coming at this point. I hope for assurance from the Minister that we are done with these technical changes. This truly is an unusual number for a Bill that everyone has been aware is coming for some time. On additionality, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to, and which I agree is exceedingly important, I have an amendment tabled for Wednesday which tackles that issue. I hope that he will have some input.

I wish to talk about the various amendments to Clause 3 relating to lifetime ISAs, which, in effect, can go into the scheme only if their transfer to a reclaim fund does not trigger a charge payable to HMRC. I am slightly taken aback. HMRC would not be getting its tax payments until the point of reclaim under normal circumstances, so by allowing the assets to go into the dormant assets scheme it loses nothing, not even the timing of the payment of tax charges, because without the reclaim there would be no tax due, as far as I can tell. That strikes me as extraordinary. Why on earth can these assets not be put into the dormant assets scheme? The tax relationship would probably need amending but that is surely not beyond HMRC’s scope. Surely we could ensure that the taxable event happened only at the point of reclaim, as it does right now, meaning there was a bigger pool available for very good causes. Can the Minister give us an idea of what kind of money we are talking about? How much is being denied to the fund because of this constraint that an event which is taxable under today’s legislation is not being amended to make it clear that it is taxable on reclaim, not on transfer to the fund?

I am getting a bit fed up with HMRC. Time and again we get its very narrow focus on tax revenue generation and very little interest in some of the consequences and external impacts of its actions. We have seen it on things such as the loan change, although this is an entirely different issue. Surely it has some responsibility to ensure that the dormant asset programme is as effective and generous as it can possibly be, and therefore making the effort to sit down and draft the various clauses that would in no way deteriorate its current or its proposed tax position, but would allow those assets to be transferred, is a reasonable expectation. I simply do not understand it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

Lord Bassam of Brighton? I think he may have muted his equipment. Can he unmute?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is quite useful to speak relatively late in this debate, because we have had a good flavour of the things that noble Lords are interested in. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about additional assets, although I disagree with her in that I think there is room, as many other noble Lords have suggested, for a more general review clause. As has been suggested, between us perhaps we can find what shape that should have. There may also be a question over whether to load the review of potential new assets into that repeating review or to have separate reviews. That is something I have not yet resolved on in my own mind.

Amendment 65 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Kramer concerns the report to Parliament, which is styled in the manner of a report from the Treasury and encompasses many of the features already discussed. It is obviously a probing amendment at this stage and covers a review of how the dormant assets scheme has worked, and then a review every three years.

It is probably too long not to have a review until three years from now. I almost want a review now, because an early review makes sense from the perspective of the point of transfer to Treasury responsibility and because there are now several years of experience of how the bank account side of things has progressed over time. That provides a datum against which to measure progression of other assets as they are brought in, and maybe to understand more about the differences as they emerge. I am sure that such monitoring has to be done anyway, but it is a matter of interest to Parliament. I therefore think it is reasonable to have the basis to interest Parliament with a review and to have a few more debates. I have not come across a debate on this before, though obviously I am much newer to this House than some other noble Lords.

I will highlight two specific things from my amendment. The first is the mention in proposed new subsection 1(b) of reviewing

“the effectiveness of the efforts made by financial institutions to secure that those entitled to money in inactive accounts are made aware of the fact.”

It now appears that there have been rather fewer claims on dormant assets than originally provided for—a matter we will return to in later amendments—but that does not explain what the various steps are and when they are taken.

I am curious about this from a recent personal experience when a bank used the notifier on a death certificate to locate the next of kin for one of my husband’s deceased brothers, but it was over 14 years after he died. The notifier had in fact moved, fortunately only once, and a letter eventually got to her and thence onward to my husband. I have absolutely no knowledge as to whether that is a typical time period before using such steps for tracing to take place, but it seems that the chance of success is much greater if tracing happens sooner and does not wait for when transfer to the dormant assets system is possible or imminent.

For pensions, of course, we are hoping that the pensions dashboard and other digital mechanisms will help keep people more attached to their money, but I am interested to know the point at which efforts are made, because it seems that it should not wait until that transfer point. It is thoughts such as that which lie behind seeking review of the effectiveness of efforts made by financial institutions. When things are done is as key to effectiveness as what has been done.

The second thing I want to highlight—it is really a collection rather than an individual point—are the issues in my subsection (2), in particular about the promptness of transfer of funds, their use and the value for money of the scheme. Again, as we will come on to in later amendments, there will have been caution over transfers at the start but by now there should be much more confidence about projections and risk assessments, and that should have flowed through to the efficiency and value for money of the scheme. It will also be important to follow what I would expect to be a similar kind of cautious and then maybe more aware progression for the new assets.

More generally, there seems to be a good case for review of all the matters that have been raised by the amendments in this group, and I hope that the Minister will note the interest in that and look favourably on an amendment on Report. If the Government were so inclined—as they seem to like amendments so far—to bring forward some more as a consequence of our discussion, maybe this is even something we could all work together on.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group touch on quite a wide range of topics. I hope it will be acceptable if I skim over them.

I want to start by picking up the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and even more strongly in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which stress the significance of—and make sure that there is capacity for—additional assets to be added to the scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, summed up that particular set of problems exceedingly well. There is absolutely no reason why the Treasury should be sitting on a whole lot of dormant assets. In fact, there is no reason why anybody should be sitting on a whole lot of dormant assets.

I would like an answer to the question about lifetime ISAs that I raised in the first group. I have no idea of the size of the pool of lifetime ISAs that cannot be put into the dormant assets scheme because without amendment that would trigger a taxable event. It would be good to have clarity on whether these are tiny sums or rather big numbers; I fear it is the latter. This would be a good opportunity to put some pressure on the Treasury to sit down and write the two or three clauses needed to amend that particular set of problems.

At Second Reading I mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, was considering tabling some amendments which would expand the scheme to include dormant betting accounts. I need to tell the Committee that he has decided not to, for some fairly straightforward reasons. After discussion with the industry, it became clear that it would not agree to participate in the scheme, which is voluntary. This is because under the current arrangements those dormant accounts can be reclassified into the profit lines of the various companies in the industry. Of course, they then pay taxes on those profits and it does impact nominally on the size of their contribution to the voluntary levy they are involved in, but it is still a meaningful source of income for them. I know that there is going to be reform of the gambling industry; this strikes me as an excellent opportunity to deal with that problem, because surely this should not be money for a company’s bottom line—these are dormant accounts, and I think all of us across the Committee would far rather see them put to good use.

I want to pick up a couple of issues raised in Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bowles, to which I have also added my name—particularly the paragraph she discussed on

“the effectiveness of the efforts made by financial institutions to secure that those entitled to money in inactive accounts are made aware of the fact.”

As she said, the right moment for this is as soon as the accounts begin to look dormant, not 14 years later.

I note the memo from the insurance trade body, the ABI, which most of us have probably received. It said that

“a step change in reconnection efforts will only truly be achieved through the use of Government data, which can be used to verify customers’ addresses and would vastly improve industry’s tracing efforts.”

Can the Minister comment on that? If things could be done at government level to greatly enhance reclaim, that would be useful and a comfort to all of us as we become much more aggressive about making sure that more and more assets go into the dormant assets scheme.

I move to the points made by my noble friend Lady Barker on the impact of the dormant assets scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that it is not something to review, but we have to recognise that this is not a straightforward area. Since we have mandated the scheme, we surely have a responsibility to know what happens with those dormant assets and exactly what they are achieving. I make a gentle point, noting the 9 June report of the Public Accounts Committee in the other place on the distribution of Covid support for charities, which says that it is

“unclear what influence special advisers had over some funding decisions, with some charities awarded government funding despite the Department’s officials initially scoring their bids in the lowest scoring category, including four out of the five lowest scoring applications.”

This suggests that identifying who should be a recipient is not straightforward. While we hope, of course, that we have chosen the right intermediaries, that they have processes in place and that the oversight is working, I believe that Parliament cannot walk away from this—so it is necessary that a report comes back to us covering this range of issues.

We will address additionality later but, if the Minister is concerned to explain constantly that the dormant assets scheme is entirely independent from the Government, she might want to look at the Government’s own website. I was going to quote it next week and had it in front of me just a moment ago. Anybody reading it would certainly assume that the Government were entirely in control, certainly of the £150 million from dormant assets that was used to support Covid. I have the text before me now. It says:

“The government has pledged £750 million to ensure VCSE can continue their vital work supporting the country … including £200 million for the Coronavirus Community Support Fund, along with an additional £150 million from dormant bank and building society accounts.”


To anybody reading that document, the Government have made clear that this is their decision, direction and influence. If that is not the case, it should not be written in that way; the Government cannot have it both ways. This may be independent and the money distributed on the basis set out in this legislation, but we are moving towards a situation in which the Secretary of State will be able to have a great deal of direct influence over where the money is distributed by changing the uses of the funds, et cetera. All of that brings us back to reporting for clarity, to make sure that everything is transparent—that strikes me as crucial.

I very much support all the measures here which, in various ways and in different clauses, call for proper review and transparency. Many of us coming to this for the first time have been quite shocked at how little anybody seems to know about a scheme that has been controlling £1 billion in assets and will be controlling several billion more in assets, and which surely will have a very significant impact for good, ill or indifference—so we really do need answers to all our questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I have nothing to add. I looked at the amendments and they all seem to make technical sense to me.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have nothing to add except that government Amendment 12 is described as a “verbal error”. I am not quite sure that you can have a verbal error in a piece of written legislation; perhaps the Minister can help us with that one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, again, these amendments relate to the minor and technical amendments about which the Minister, my noble friend Lady Barran, wrote to your Lordships on 14 June.

Amendments 66 to 72 are consequential amendments to the schedules to other pieces of legislation. Amendment 66 would amend references in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to an “authorised reclaim fund”; it would also amend the regulated activities order to ensure that it reflects the wider activities of a reclaim fund provided for by the Bill.

Amendments 67 to 71 would amend the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. Amendment 67 would ensure that the provisions made in Clause 17(1) of the Bill, on trust and fiduciary duties, apply to banking assets. Amendments 68 and 69 would clarify that the Reclaim Fund is to transfer money from unwanted assets to the National Lottery Community Fund while being able to retain the amount it needs to meet regulatory requirements or expenses. Amendment 70 would remove an unnecessary reference to the deduction of expenses from surplus funds. As these have already been identified as surplus and therefore available in full for transfer to good causes, no further deductions would be needed. Amendments 71 and 72 would ensure that the 2008 Act refers to all types of eligible pensions benefits.

The other amendments—Amendments 11, 32, 38 to 41, 43, 47 to 49, 73, 74 and 76—would ensure that cross-references to the Bill are correct. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will again be brief but I went nearly mad trying to track some of these amendments through. I accept that they are consequential but I have one question. FSMA 2000, an Act with which I have spent far too much of my life, will—after these amendments—now use the phrase “unwanted asset money”. Are the Government comfortable that we do not have a problem with the word “unwanted”? There is a difference between dormant money and money that is unwanted. We all know that the reclaim process is critical but I want to be sure that we have not got ourselves into any tricky corners with all of that. That is my only comment; the intent is obviously consequential.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too am broadly satisfied with this collection of amendments, although they raise some questions about the initial drafting. I made a point about that at the outset of this afternoon’s deliberations. I just wonder why we have to amend the definition of “third party” by government Amendment 47. Also, what is not right—this is in government Amendment 49—with the definition of “repayment claims” that requires amendment? Perhaps the Minister could help us with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment, which I support in principle. I am not saying this in jest, but I am always gravely suspicious of lists which involve alliteration, because you are left wondering whether the wish to have all the words starting with the letter E—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—overcomes the need to comprehensively describe what the audit should be doing. Where does “economy, efficiency and effectiveness” come from? Maybe it is a standard phrase which is well established and understood to be comprehensive, but reassurance on that would be helpful.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I very much support everything that has been said so far, and I hope that we will get some clarity. Value for money is critical when we are dealing with these kinds of organisations.

I decided I would take a quick look at the financials of Reclaim Fund Ltd—which does not take very long as they are not hugely detailed—and the number that knocked me over and made me very concerned that value for money was definitely on the agenda was the remuneration of the chief executive. They may be an absolutely stellar individual and I would not wish in any way to criticise the individual personally but, according to the numbers I was looking at, there are 12 employees of Reclaim Fund Ltd, one of whom is the chief executive himself, and the chair. The median CEO salary in 2019 at the largest 100 charities was £155,000 a year, but in 2020 the chief executive of Reclaim Fund Ltd earned £217,000, if I add up simply salary and performance-related pay and leave out the pensions stuff. It struck me as prima facie rather out of line. Making sure that there is an audit that takes value for money into account would certainly give us all much more confidence that these issues were being handled appropriately. I fully understand that, as the asset base expands, there will be more complexity, so maybe there is a changing situation. But the 2019 pay packet was similar and I want to make sure that the appropriate body is focused properly on these issues and that value for money sits right at the front of the audit responsibility.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is always nice to be able to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We have crossed swords many times, but I very much share one thing in common with her, and that is a desire to have an absolutely laser focus on getting value for money. So I am very supportive of her amendment; it certainly goes to the right place. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, touched on the importance of that in drawing our attention to remuneration levels within Reclaim Fund Ltd.

We need to be assured that we are getting value for money. Getting the Comptroller and Auditor-General involved in looking at the Reclaim Fund Ltd is a valuable use of the time of that body, because we need to better understand how funds are being used and be reassured that the best possible value for money is being secured. After all, this is a very significant funding mechanism and we need to ensure that, as part of it, the Reclaim Fund Ltd operates to the best and highest of standards. My noble friend Lord Davies is right that we need to focus on issues such as efficiency and effectiveness of spend, so I am very supportive of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am definitely in the camp of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lady Bowles here.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that my understanding of the fund—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is not that this is sort of an endowment that is meant to subsist in perpetuity, essentially dispensing just part of its income to various charities every year. It looks back historically, and says: “Over years we’ve built up this huge block of dormant assets. Let’s do something with it, and quick.” The people receiving it know that they are not getting a future stream of cash. This is a way basically to say: “We’ve got a pool of dormant assets—money that’s not being used. Let’s just get that out into the community.” The way in which the fund is replenished is by the addition of new categories and classes of asset, not a continuous rate of people keeping up the level of forgotten bank accounts. That is an important message to get through.

I look at the retention rate of 40% against cash—it is not even a question of the value—as extreme prudence. This fund was created ahead of the financial crash. It has been through the financial crash and the Covid nightmare and has never needed anything even vaguely close to a 40% retention rate. You have to say that this has been tested in fire. I cannot imagine anybody looking and saying that 40% makes sense. I have no idea where the actuarial number comes from. It would be interesting to see the logic, but I suspect we would raise our eyebrows if we did.

As my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made clear, we are now in a situation in which Reclaim Fund Ltd is a non-departmental public body. On Wednesday, I will speak to an amendment exploring whether any replacement or addition to Reclaim Fund Ltd would continue to have that status. I take the view that it should, but it now has the Government sitting behind it, for goodness’ sake: it is on books, and if it is on books then let us use it. In effect, we have a guarantee. I doubt that we would ever want to see the retention rate drop to the level where we thought that there was any serious probability that it would have to tap into that government guarantee—that is not what we are looking at—but that number and the 40% for cash are very wide apart. We now have a move by the fund into new classes of asset. I dread to think what retention rate it thinks will be necessary for that. We could easily be looking at 80% or 90% retention rates, which are absolutely pointless.

The purpose of the whole dormant asset concept is to take money that is sitting in pots not being used and get it out there where it can do good. I have one question. Since there is a huge pool of cash sitting somewhere under the auspices of Reclaim Fund Ltd, what is happening to it? Where is it sitting, who is getting fees, who is getting commissions, who is being paid to manage it? It may be my inadequacy in trying to read the accounts, since the only ones I have been able to get have been from Companies House, but I cannot work that out. Can the Minister inform us?

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, one of the wonderful things about this House is that there is always a way to say what you want and stay within the rules. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, not currently in his place, for welcoming, on behalf of the whole House, the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, on the occasion of her maiden speech. She joins quite a cabal of noble Lords all across this House who are very focused on the issue of music education; I hope that her addition will help them take that issue over the transom, as it were, and make sure that we get a secure basis for funding music education in the future—though, like some others, I think that it should be less a charity issue and more a fundamental issue of funding from central and local government.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who was kind enough to provide a briefing to those of us with an interest. It was a thorough and very open briefing, and we on these Benches very much appreciated that opportunity. As she said in her opening comments on that briefing, this is a technical bill. Usually, when I hear those words, I am immediately suspicious—we have just dealt with a Financial Services Bill described as “technical” and it was anything but—but, in this case, I accept that that is an accurate description of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, it has worthy objectives that none of us could possibly object to, and I have heard no fundamental objection in any of the speeches in this House.

We all understand that there are principles that were established in the original dormant assets Act, and we understand that the intention is that those will remain consistent in this new Bill. The most important of these is almost certainly that reclaim is an absolute priority—the rights of the gone-away are in no way trammelled—but there has to be positive action to try to relink people to their lost assets.

I take some objection to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, though he is not the only person who said that if people cannot manage their money, let us at least do something useful with it. In the incredibly complex financial world that we deal with, and one that has changed in so many ways—just look at the whole pensions environment—it is not surprising to me that people have lost track of assets that should rightfully be theirs. There needs to be real pressure on the industry to make sure it does a much better job in reconnecting them. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, were the shoe on the other foot, it would be hunting people down to pay their various obligations.

I found it interesting that, in the briefing we had from the AIB, the insurance lobby group, there was a plea for access to government data where that is possible without trammelling privacy regulations, and to make that an easier process. Now, with the addition of new assets, this is becoming more and more important, as well as, frankly, more and more of a challenge. It is also a principle that participation in the scheme by asset holders is entirely voluntary, and it seems to me that that is upheld.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, also talked in her briefing about the importance of the additionality principle. I will say a little more on this later, but I am somewhat in the camp of the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Davies of Brixton, in asking: what is additionality? It is a rather fuzzy concept, and one of which I think we have to be aware and wary. My noble friend Lady Barker pointed out that during the Covid crisis—Covid became an excuse for many things—that principle was openly breached. I do not think that any of us in the House today want to see that become an underlying pattern. We all know through common sense what additionality is, and let us hope that, by the time the Bill leaves this House, we end up feeling that it is well embedded in this new legislation.

On the expansion of the scheme to new classes of assets, we heard a number of suggestions for additional new classes of assets that have not been dealt with in the Bill. Yet others were cautious about taking the scheme too far, particularly where there is no easy way in which to crystallise the value of the asset and where there is no established principle within the current industry on how gone-away owners will be dealt with and how the value of their assets, if they come to reclaim them, will be set. That will be important, and I hope that we can press the Minister on it a bit, because the Bill essentially gives power to the Minister to make those future decisions; it no longer brings them in front of Parliament. It will be critical that we understand what the principles are that would lead to expansion. I am not saying that it should be an anti-expansion measure; it is just important to understand before we sign off on the Bill exactly how that process will happen and what the underlying principles will be.

I should say on behalf of my party that my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath, who was unable to speak today, will, in Committee, raise the issue of whether unclaimed winnings and dormant betting accounts would be appropriate assets to bring into the pool. The Dormant Assets Commission in 2017 promised that it would look again at that issue in three years’ time—and here we are, four years later. It would be worthwhile.

Almost nobody raised the issue of the Reclaim Fund Ltd entity. It is now, as we know, a non-departmental public body, and that is right; a public interest element should be embedded in whatever organisation handles the reclaim process. But we are also giving powers to the Government to replace that body with additional bodies. As far as I can see, there is little constraint on what the character of that new player might be. Forgive me for being an old cynic, but look, for example, at recent legislation on what happens in bankruptcy. I have watched financial institutions manoeuvring to put themselves into positions where they can maximise commissions and fees that offer a whole variety of opportunities. I am cynical enough to think that, if we do not have some sort of standards or criteria for a group behaving as a reclaim fund, we could certainly see entities coming forward that would find ways in which to exploit the opportunity of managing this.

We must understand better why the current retention rate is so high—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was eloquent on this issue and my noble friend Lady Bowles spoke to it—particularly as the Government stand behind a reclaim fund. A simple guarantee would serve, and that might release a great deal more money. It all becomes much more complex as we go into a more diverse set of assets, and we need much better understanding.

That leads me to the point originally made by my noble friend Lady Bowles and others in this House: the entity is rather opaque. We do not understand quite how it is functioning and making its various decisions. We do not understand the level of efficiency. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that there should be value for money. Perhaps a private audit firm is the wrong way in which to look at this; we need something with a shape that is much more in the public interest. I very much hope that the Government will explore that.

I shall draw my comments to a close by considering the distribution of funds—an issue that has occupied most of the discussion in this House. I have no intention of repeating the wide range of proposals for ways in which the money should be distributed, but a lot was said about social capital, the need for money for long- term patients, local input and control, and music education. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, I think, talked about the BBC as a possible recipient. There was reference to the community wealth fund proposals that we have all received. There are many different ways in which this could go as the distribution of funds is expanded.

I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. He said that the existing distribution has sitting behind it confidence and consent. That principle must extend into any changes to the way in which the assets are distributed.

I also want to pick up the point made in detail by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and many others. The Minister described the consultation process promised in this Bill as a public consultation, whereas that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says that

“the Secretary of State must consult … the Big Lottery Fund, and”—

as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said—

“such other persons (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”

I do not think that will survive Committee stage, quite frankly. There is too much opportunity for this to become a game of favourites, and we cannot let that happen. That principle of confidence and consent seems absolutely fundamental to all of this.

I welcome this Bill. It has many useful purposes. I accept that it is a technical Bill. We will support it but, again, we will do so in principle. I can see areas that will be explored in Committee. I am delighted that those areas have been identified by speakers on several different Benches across this House, because the fundamental concept of the first dormant assets Bill was cross-party, and I believe that this Bill very much needs that characteristic too.

Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I hope that it is close, because meanwhile we have another seven of these instruments to consider today and the whole of the Order Paper for Wednesday has, I think, another dozen of them. We also have hundreds more coming next week. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I hope that this can be resolved extremely quickly and that we can find a satisfactory way forward, because the issue of the lack of impact assessments seems to be entirely arbitrary. We have some on the later instruments that will be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, but there are none on these. However, no formal consultation has been carried out on any of the instruments.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I have some fear that I will raise the noble Lord’s blood pressure even higher, but if he takes a look at the impact assessments that are provided, I think that he will be shocked by their inadequacy. They do not move us very far on from having no impact assessment at all.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I do not think that it is possible for my blood pressure to be higher on these matters. However, I hope that the blood pressure of the House is high, because we are supposed to be legislating on behalf of the country, and the proceedings of your Lordships in respect of these no-deal statutory instruments are an absolute farce. I do not think that the procedures of the House are working well. The fact is that the two chairs of our relevant sub-committees cannot even agree on a letter to send to the Treasury in respect of the handling of consultation. The fact that it is about six months after we started getting the initial flow of statutory instruments on this matter coming to the House is in itself deeply unsatisfactory and is not a good commentary on the way our parliamentary proceedings are working. Moreover, the fact is that what we get are bromides from the Government that there is no change, based on there being no impact assessments, no consultation and a complete misreading of what the situation is in any event, because it involves a denial of all of the negative consequences that will flow from leaving the European Union, which of course is the underlying fact that they should be grappling with in the first place when conducting consultations and impact assessments. It is deeply unsatisfactory.

The right thing for this House to do would be to reject these instruments. We should not be a party to such an abuse of our constitutional procedures as is taking place with these no-deal instruments. What we will be faced with, though—I feel this pressure myself—is that we could crash out of the European Union in an unconscionable act of misgovernment in the course of five weeks’ time, so we have to do our level best to ensure at least that there is a statute book in place for that eventuality. But I and other noble Lords want to put on the record that the situation we are faced with, and which gets worse with every debate that flushes out more facts about what is actually happening, is a complete abuse of our constitutional procedures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I agree with the noble Lord who is saying from a sedentary position that that is why he is here and why it is important. However, taking my personal experience of the telecoms SI, an hour and a half in the Moses Room and an hour in the Chamber seems to be pretty reasonable scrutiny. As for how the House in general and the Government are handling SIs—

[Baroness Kramer]

This is not just a matter of time; it is whether people have the appropriate information to be able to raise and challenge issues. That is the underlying issue that the Minister is running into in this House.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I understand that point, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made it to me forcefully in the Moses Room. This SI has been laid for some time and there have been opportunities for noble Lords to talk to and engage with anyone from the DCMS. I take the point that it is sometimes difficult for Back-Benchers to get information if they do not ask the department. However, I think that the Front Benches have been fairly open in exchanging information on any SI—that is certainly the case in my department. I offered the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, opportunities to ask questions well before the debate, as I think he acknowledged.

It is not for me to say how the House and its sifting committees behave and how the two committees have liaised with each other. However, I will take the noble Lord’s request back to the usual channels. I will not commit to there being a Statement tomorrow but I will certainly take back his point to make sure that the usual channels listen to what he has said. The making of Statements will be up to them—that is not for me; nor is it for me to comment on the work of the sifting committees of your Lordships’ House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am sorry, but I do not agree with the noble Lord. When we have the UK GDPR, which these regulations will bring into place, there will be reciprocity in the need to have representatives in each other’s countries. I agree that this will be a change. We do not need them at the moment because we are in the EU, but this will be a result of leaving the EU.

[Baroness Kramer]

I want to get some clarity on this and perhaps the Minister will be able to help me. He is quite clear that, for a wide variety of companies, there will need to be one representative in the UK and, he seems to imply, one representative in the EEA. Is that correct, or does there need to be one in each country within the EEA—or does the individual in the EEA have to deal with different regimes because of the different local regulators and because it is representing a third country in its work? I am trying to work out how great the burden that he has indicated will be, even though he does not think that it will be part of the impact.

[Baroness Ludford]

Before the Minister answers, I would like to press again this idea that an impact assessment is not needed since the impact comes from leaving. I say no to that; it depends how you leave. The Minister and I may differ on the desirability of the Prime Minister’s deal, whatever that is going to be, but there is a difference between crashing out and having a transition with a political declaration which may avoid the need for duplication; we do not know what the data protection provisions will be in the future relationships. We all hope that there will be a strong degree of mutual recognition, but the immediate impact of crashing out with no deal—with a void where any adequacy decision or future reciprocal relationship between regulators would otherwise be—is quite different. First, it is different from having a standstill transition and, secondly, it is different from having the prospect, or at least the hope, of a long-term relationship that preserves something of the single market. We need the impact assessment to assess the difference between those two scenarios; that is what the Minister does not seem to grasp.