Hadrian’s Wall: Newcastle’s West End

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

It would be very easy, wouldn’t it? Thank you, Sir Gary. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship again. My sincere thanks to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for introducing this important debate today, and to the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) for their contributions and their passion, which I very much appreciate.

I should say straight away—I will come back to this towards the end of my speech—I absolutely hear the asks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central. I will answer some of them directly during this speech, but some sit with other Departments. I am sure she will appreciate that I cannot promise, today, to give answers on behalf of another Department, but I am more than happy to facilitate introductions and/or discussions, as appropriate, because it sounds as if there are a few things that need to be rearranged or sorted out.

As the Minister responsible for heritage, I am genuinely heartened to see the passion and vigour for our nation’s history that today’s debate has evoked. I welcome the aim of raising awareness, overall, about Hadrian’s Wall locally, nationally, and, indeed, internationally. I thank the hon. Members present for doing just that. It is a heritage landscape of truly global significance. It is recognised as a world heritage site and attracts visitors from around the world. It is also, rightly, a source of local pride for the hon. Members’ constituents. Of course, Hadrian’s Wall is one of the largest and most complex UK world heritage sites, extending over 150 miles from South Shields to the Cumbrian coast.

The benefits of Hadrian’s Wall directly impact about 1 million people who live in rural and urban communities along its length. The cultural and heritage interests that the wall brings extend far beyond the story of Rome’s greatest frontier—or final frontier, as I think the hon. Lady said—including the border and coastal landscapes of Hadrian’s Wall country, the raiders and, of course, Christian heritage.

The beauty of Hadrian’s Wall is that it provides a broad range of opportunities for local residents and visitors alike to deepen their understanding of that great heritage landscape. As the hon. Lady articulated, there are many educational benefits to the wall. It is often referred to in schools to teach children about Roman history and the Roman occupation of Britain as a key part of our heritage.

Of course, as the hon. Lady also mentioned, the wall is also significant for the visitor economy and tourism, which bring a significant amount of money into the area. I think she also mentioned things like walking tours, which again are really important; indeed, they are a growing part of our visitor economy.

I know the hon. Lady’s passion for all things related to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. When I heard that she had secured a debate in Westminster Hall today, I just assumed that it would be on football. Nevertheless, she is truly passionate about all things DDCMS and I have heard her speak before about all these issues, strongly representing her part of the country.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the celebration of the wall’s 1,900th year this year. I am really pleased to see such a focus on these celebrations being embedded in the local communities, with a whole programme of events that will bring communities together and showcase the significance of this wonderful site. Many stakeholders, including Historic England, will provide significant funding.

The hon. Lady put a great emphasis, too, on accurate education and reporting, and on the value that the wall brings to her particular area. The west end of Newcastle in particular is crucial to this festival’s development this year. As she said, the area is one of the most culturally diverse parts of the wall today. Indeed, I have heard her before rightly raising the importance of such issues as the role of African soldiers who were garrisoned on the wall during Roman occupation. I think that was back in a Black History Month debate back in 2020. Today, she again told us about the importance of accurate history and ensuring that we teach history accurately.

Much of our most cherished heritage, including Hadrian’s Wall, lies on agricultural land, of course, and the majority of the wall is on privately owned land. Agricultural and environmental schemes represent the main source of funding for the conservation and maintenance of most parts of the wall. My Department and Historic England are working with DEFRA to ensure that heritage right along the wall is protected and promoted, through successor EU schemes known collectively as the environment land management schemes. Those schemes will improve many aspects of the local environment, including water quality, biodiversity, air quality, food management and climate change.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his remarks. He raised an issue that I was not aware of. There is some funding available through successor EU schemes for rural areas of the wall, but is there funding available for those parts of the wall in urban areas, such as the service station or the Indian restaurant that might happen to have a bit of the wall on their grounds, in the same way?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Lady for those comments. I will come on to a couple of aspects of that issue in a moment, but there are multiple funds available, including the National Lottery Heritage Fund, and we are also working with Historic England on a variety of initiatives. I am sure that she and her colleagues have engaged with those organisations in the past. They have a variety of funds. Of course, any potential bidders must put in a bid and explain why they need support. However, I have found that Historic England teams and National Lottery Heritage Fund teams are always willing to work with hon. Members and other stakeholders, not only to identify funds, but to work with them to strengthen their bid in some cases, perhaps if an initial bid for funding does not work. I encourage her to look at that as well.

I will return to some of the specific and very important points that the hon. Lady made. She raised concerns about Hadrian’s Wall path not following the actual route of the wall, particularly in the west end of the city, but also in other areas.

I understand that this issue has been at least partially addressed, or that there has been an attempt to address it, through a walker’s guide to the alternative route, which allows potential walkers to see the beauty of the wall itself and encourages people to follow the route through the west end and towards Wallsend. The guide also provides an explanation and interpretation of what can be seen and appreciated along the walk.

I know that the hon. Lady is asking for a rerouting of the trail. As she acknowledged, overall responsibility for that lies with Natural England and the trail partners, sponsored by DEFRA. Anyone suggesting a realignment of the route must first make an evidence-based case to the National Trail Partnership and DEFRA. I know that she understands that, but I would be happy to talk to my colleagues at DEFRA, make sure that they are aware of the debate today, and ask them to revisit that issue, as she requests. As a DDCMS Minister or a Heritage Minister, I cannot make promises on behalf of another Department, but I understand the case that she is making and, as a point of principle, it is important that we educate and inform people about our history accurately, or as accurately as possible.

Funding from the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal is looking at better signage along Hadrian’s Wall—a point raised by hon. Members today. Although this work is in its early stages, the route of the wall through Tyneside and a potential link between the fort at Wallsend and Arbeia via the Tyne foot tunnel could be considered as part of the work as well as other potential rerouting. Again, I would be happy to raise that on behalf of colleagues.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central has spoken eloquently, as always, and passionately about the significance of the wall. She has rightly highlighted its relevance as an archaeological and educational property and its continued importance as a living heritage attraction and a crown jewel of the region’s visitor economy. She is in good company in this regard and I thank her for securing today’s debate. I also thank colleagues who have contributed and raised the importance of our absolute national treasure, Hadrian’s Wall.

[Chi Onwurah]

I can tell that the Minister is coming to a conclusion. I am grateful for his words of support. I asked about collaboration with the Department for Education and the archaeological issue. I know he is not the Minister directly responsible for some of this, but will he promise to write to me to address those issues as well?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Yes. The hon. Lady has raised many issues about the importance of the wall. I would be happy to write to her with further information and detail. Archaeological and heritage support is a particular role for the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic England. On the educational aspect, my initial reaction is that she has raised valid points. Again, I cannot make promises on behalf of other Departments, but I am happy to write to them and raise those comments. I look forward to continuing the dialogue and visiting the wall again across all its length very shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I know that the Westminster press corps has been waiting for something exciting to happen in Parliament today, so I am glad to be able to help to provide it. It is good to see the Secretary of State in her place fresh from her “Channel 4 News” interview triumph.

The SNP welcomes the Bill and the expansion of the dormant assets scheme. The extra £880 million available as a result is welcome. The scheme has already delivered £745 million for social and environmental initiatives. By expanding the list of assets that qualify for the scheme, up to £1.7 billion more could be available for use.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the remarks made about the Bill in the other place, although I am sure that he is aware of them. Peers wanted clarity on its potential costs and more detailed impact assessments for the expanded scheme. Baroness Barker specifically warned that these details were important, so the scheme does not become a

“piggyback fund for government when times are tough.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 May 2021; Vol. 1039, c. 812.]

SNP Members welcome the Labour party amendment proposing an annual assessment of the health and governance of authorised reclaimed funds; this will, I think, help to assuage Baroness Barker’s concerns. Also, as a principle, the more scrutiny is given to this legislation, the better it will function.

It is good, of course, to see that the Bill makes some changes to distribution in England. Now the Secretary of State will have more freedom to spread assets through secondary legislation. That allows England to catch up with Scotland, which already has such an ability. As Lord Triesman highlighted in the other place, it was the example set by the devolved nations, whose innovative thinking in how they spend the funds allotted to them, that provided the impetus for the expansion of the scheme that the Bill presents. What the pandemic has shown is that the needs of the population can change dramatically and suddenly. Flexibility in secondary legislation is a useful tool to deal with that, and we must continue to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny.

We welcome the requirement for the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation and to consult the national lottery. The Community Fund must always be consulted before replacing or changing an order. However, it may be desirable to expand this consultation beyond the national lottery Community Fund and to include devolved Ministers responsible for spending in their nations, and representatives of the voluntary and social enterprise sectors.

It is reassuring to see that the expanded scheme will focus on reuniting owners with their dormant assets. With the expanded range of qualifying products, it is estimated that £3.7 billion-worth of products are lying dormant. For all the good that the schemes do for various charities, it is of the utmost importance that people are reunited with their assets. With the elderly and the vulnerable, especially those without digital skills, among those most likely to lose access or connection to their accounts in an increasingly digitised world, reunification efforts are more important than ever. That is why the SNP welcomes the enhanced tracing and verification measures, which could lead to £2 billion being returned to members of the public.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contribution to the debate and for the constructive way in which everyone has engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. I thank in particular those who have spoken this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) has made his points about community wealth funds frequently and passionately, as have the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), whom I will acknowledge again later. I can confirm for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the expansion will cover Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) again spoke passionately about the impact that dormant assets funding will have on local communities. We should never forget that.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) mentioned the principle of additionality, as did my opposite numbers on the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith). That principle underlies the Bill absolutely and completely. Regarding expansion, the Secretary of State is to conduct periodic reviews—within three years and then again in five years. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire mentioned that Scotland currently operates on a different basis, and that is one of the reasons why we have sought to expand where dormant assets money can be used.

I particularly thank my opposite numbers on the Labour Front Bench for their constructive contributions. Throughout, we have agreed on the principles. It is nice and good to see a Bill through its various stages with such a degree of consensus. Although we sometimes disagree on elements of detail, on the Bill’s overwhelming purpose and underlying principles there is complete agreement, and I appreciate the constructive way they have engaged with me.

However, I am afraid we do not believe that new clause 1—a proposal we debated in Committee—is necessary, largely on the basis that there is considerable oversight already, as I have explained before. Although the new clause refers to “authorised reclaim funds”, in practice it refers specifically to Reclaim Fund Ltd, as it is currently the only authorised reclaim fund in the United Kingdom. RFL publishes its audited annual reports and accounts on its website annually. In 2019 the Office for National Statistics classified RFL to the central Government subsector, and in April 2021 it therefore became a Treasury-owned arm’s length body.

Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 28th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

Many thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) for introducing the Bill and for speaking so eloquently about it today. Indeed, I thank all those who have contributed to today’s debate.

The Bill will provide an important improvement to an already worthy tool, which is used by many of our fantastic cultural institutions across England and Scotland. The useful recap that my right hon. Friend provided, setting out the history of how immunity from seizure legislation was first arrived at in the UK, was very important. It emphasised the confidence that such measures have built, and the willingness and trust that our international partners now have when they lend their objects for temporary exhibitions in our approved museums and galleries.

Many international lenders require immunity from seizure protection when they loan cultural objects to other countries as a matter of course, and it is often an uncompromisable condition of their loan that the object is protected in that way during its stay. If that condition were not met, we would risk not having those very objects that we want to come here. The protection provides a legal assurance that a lender’s objects will be protected from court-ordered seizure for a limited period while in the UK. Many countries have their own similar version of immunity from seizure, for the same reasons, enabling us to lend abroad.

The process that sits behind immunity from seizure protection is necessarily robust. To use the protection, museums and galleries must go through a rigorous application process to attain approved status. That involves demonstrating that they are an ethical organisation, that they follow proper due diligence processes for examining the history of loans in, and that they will not borrow items if there is any suspicion that they were stolen, looted or illegally obtained. For the protection to apply to objects they are borrowing, approved institutions must also publish detailed information about such objects at least four weeks before the objects enter the UK. That diligent work is all part of the high standard of professional practice that our museums carry out as part of their loan procedures. It is fantastic that 38 museums and counting have achieved immunity from seizure approved status. That is a testament to their excellent track records and their continued commitment to upholding the highest standards of due diligence.

Many Members highlighted the very important fact that this is not a London issue. Many museums that provide the service are outside London, including Manchester Art Gallery, the National Museums of Scotland, Wolverhampton’s museums and museums in Liverpool, Norfolk and elsewhere around the country. Therefore, the important points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and others about this not being a London issue are very well taken and noted. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) highlighted that fact by giving specific examples of where the protection has already meant we have had loans from incredible institutions around the world, with many more coming this year.

Many Members also mentioned, rather interestingly, the issue with the Icelandic volcano. I did note, however—maybe you can help, Mr Deputy Speaker—that none of us were actually brave enough to name the volcano.

[Chris Clarkson]

May I just check? Is the Minister referring to Eyjafjallajökull?

[Nigel Huddleston]

There’s always somebody, isn’t there, Mr Deputy Speaker? [Laughter.] I was just about to say that, but there is no point anymore.

Several Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) and for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) and others, mentioned their memories, decades later, of visiting the Tutankhamun exhibition or even just watching the news coverage of some incredible exhibitions. That shows the importance and embeddedness of these events and the impact they can have on us, in particular when very young.

The 12-month limit of protection was an issue raised specifically by approved museums and galleries during the more restricted periods we all faced during the pandemic. What would happen to loans approaching 12 months if coronavirus measures and global travel delays meant the borrower could not return them in time, despite all their efforts to comply with regulations and to satisfy the owner’s conditions of the loan? The issue is most relevant to our approved museums and galleries in England and Scotland, as the current users of immunity from seizure protection. As the world begins to feel a little more certain again, I am sure that the recent experiences have taught us to expect the unexpected. As we continue to support the sector’s recovery, it is important that we consider measures such as this. An option to extend the length of time that objects can be covered by immunity from seizure is a sensible contingency to have, especially in uncertain times.

The proposal for such extensions to be considered on a case-by-case basis where needs arise is welcomed, as it will allow for some flexibility. Assessing scenarios in that way will also help to ensure that the extensions are used only where absolutely necessary, and that in the majority of cases objects on loan to approved museums in England or Scotland are returned in a timely manner and within the standard 12 months.

Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), raised questions about guidance and when that would be implemented. Policy guidance for museums on how they should apply for extensions and in what circumstances is in development at an official level and will be a collaborative effort with officials in the Scottish Government to ensure they provide succinct practical steps for approved museums to follow in the event that they cannot return objects in time. It will set out broad examples of acceptable circumstances where an extension protection may be justified, for example where long-term national or international travel disruption is expected to last beyond the expiration of the 12-month loan period.

As I have said, it is regrettable that the Bill will not have effect in Northern Ireland and Wales. There are currently no museums in Wales and Northern Ireland approved under the 2007 Act, but the Bill does not change their ability to apply for approved status in the future, and of course any objects loaned by approved museums in Northern Ireland and Wales will be covered by the standard 12-month period available to all approved museums.

The Government are content that the drafting of the Bill offers the best protection to cultural objects. I am pleased, therefore, to confirm once again that the Government welcome and support this private Member’s Bill, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon for introducing it.

Women’s Football

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, for the second time this week. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) for securing this debate, and everyone who has participated so eloquently and knowledgably. I wish a happy birthday to my opposite number, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith).

The debate is particularly timely, given that we are counting down to 6 July, when England will kick off their first match in the women’s Euros against Austria at Old Trafford. As many hon. Members mentioned, women’s football has made significant progress recently. I was fortunate to be at Wembley last December for the Vitality women’s FA cup final between Chelsea and Arsenal. It was a brilliant match, and it marked the 50th anniversary of the first women’s FA cup final—interestingly, it was only the 50th, for the reasons the hon. Member for Sunderland Central outlined. It achieved, my notes say, a record crowd of 40,000 people, but that is corrected by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who mentioned there being a 53,000-person crowd in the past, so we still have a way to go. In addition, a record audience of 28.1 million viewers watched the BBC coverage of the 2019 FIFA women’s world cup on television and online. I praise the work done by the BBC and many of the public service broadcasters in their broadcasting.

We have seen other kinds of progress. There have been bespoke women’s sports deals, such as the Barclays’ sponsorship of the FA women’s super league, which the hon. Member for Sunderland Central mentioned. We need that sponsorship; it is really important that this money flows into the game. England’s men and women senior players are now being the paid the same match fee for representing their country, but there is still huge progress to be made in equality of players’ pay, as many hon. Members pointed out. I praise teams such as Lewes for the progress and leadership they have shown.

Despite the positive signs and progress, we cannot be complacent. Since becoming the Minister for sport, I have made it a personal priority to champion women’s sport, including women’s football, at every opportunity. That is why last year I established a working group to explore the challenges and opportunities in women’s sport. The group included Women in Football and the FA, and it discusses challenges, opportunities and how best to overcome obstacles. The work of that group has already shaped thinking in the Department considerably.

I think I can make a few people happy today by announcing that I have written to sports’ governing bodies and broadcasters outlining that the Secretary of State and I are minded to add the women’s World cup and the women’s Euros to the listed events regime. We will have a short re-consultation, which will end on 16 February. This is a huge opportunity for women’s football; it can bring those tournaments to an even larger audience. We are working on several other areas, including the refresh of sport.

Many hon. Members mentioned misogyny and the hatred spread online. I am looking closely at how the online harms Bill might tackle the persistent and utterly unacceptable misogyny that continues to blight women’s sport.

As many hon. Members have mentioned, there has been considerable growth of the sport at grassroots level. The FA published its “Gameplan for Growth” and highlighted that women’s and girls’ participation has doubled over the last few years. There are 12,000 registered teams, and there are 2.4 million women and 1 million girls under the age of 16 playing football.

Many hon. Members mentioned the importance of access to facilities, and I completely agree with them on that. That is precisely why we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in pitches and multi-sport pitches, and why I am working with the Department for Education on how we can make further progress on schools’ access to sports.

Despite the momentum in recent years, women’s sport, including football, has been heavily impacted by the pandemic; there is the slow return of spectators, a lack of media coverage in some cases, and a loss of sponsorship deals—deals that women’s sport has historically found it difficult to attract. As several hon. Members mentioned, we saw that most recently in the near liquidation of Coventry United ladies football club.

I turn to the fan-led review. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)—like the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, and indeed everybody here—is a passionate advocate of women’s and girls’ football. The review, which published its final recommendations in November, not only considered the issues affecting the men’s game in this country, but examined the complex future of women’s football, which has a growing number of participants and fans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford set out, fans and advocates of women’s and girls’ football gave evidence to the review, and starkly set out the fact that the women’s game is at a crucial point. Many who gave evidence spoke passionately about the need for women’s football to be properly financed; that should include a consideration of sponsorship and many other areas.

As many hon. Members have acknowledged, the review concluded:

“Women’s football should be treated with parity and given its own dedicated review.”

I am afraid that I cannot promise to give the Government’s response today, but I can tell hon. Members that we are working on it every day; many people are working on it. I will ensure that I give a full response in the spring. There is no dragging of feet here. I thank the many people who have done work on this, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. It is because that work was so comprehensive that we want to do it justice and give it a comprehensive response. My hon. Friend mentioned the letter that she and others wrote to me. I will reply to her letter regarding the designation of women’s football matches under the Football (Offences) (Designation of Football Matches) Order 2004.

It is worth pointing out that football banning orders are a Home Office policy, although we at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport do work very closely with the Home Office on that. I can confirm, however, that the football banning order legislation covers both women’s and men’s designated matches where there is a high risk of disorder. However, there may well need to be consideration of whether the scope of the order needs to be widened. I will happily raise that with my Home Office colleagues. Members mentioned several other requests.

[Tracey Crouch]

The Minister will be aware that the Home Office has tabled an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is in the House of Lords, to extend the scope of football banning orders in order to tackle online racist abuse. Is this not an opportunity to ensure that football-related matters are covered?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will happily raise that with the Home Office, though I cannot make promises about legislation on behalf of another Department.

I hope I leave hon. Members in no doubt that I am personally committed to continuing to help women’s sport, including football, to come out of the pandemic stronger than ever. I will continue to work with the sector, and with all stakeholders across the House, to make that happen.

Charities Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debate. We have grouped some clause stand part debates together to avoid repetition. Only one amendment has been tabled; the decision on that will be taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects.

Clause 1

Alteration of Charitable Company’s Purposes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, I believe for the first time. I want first to briefly acknowledge the task before us. These Committee sittings will enable line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, which has been drafted to improve charity law and to pass time and cost savings on to the charity sector. I am pleased that we have reached this stage in the Bill’s passage, and I am grateful for the support the Bill has received and the scrutiny it has been subjected to thus far.

Clause 1 changes the definition of a “regulated alteration”, meaning that only alterations to the substance of a charity’s purposes will require Charity Commission approval. There will no longer be a requirement to obtain Charity Commission consent to simply change the wording of a charity’s purposes where the overall meaning remains unchanged. This change creates consistency in the processes for amending a charity’s governing document across the different legal forms that charities can take.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for his introduction.

The Opposition agree with the measures in clause 1. They will reduce bureaucracy and allow charities to focus on the work that they do, which is the essence of the Bill. Charities do great work for society and our communities. We owe it to them to provide a legal framework that is clear and manageable—especially for the large number of small charities with limited staff and resources—but with sufficient safeguards for charities and for the system. We also owe charities an efficient framework that allows them to concentrate not on bureaucratic technicalities but on doing their work, and the clause is an example of the proposed changes in the Bill that will allow them to do that.

I am going to make the same point that I made the last time the Minister and I were in Committee together, on the Dormant Assets Bill. There is a temptation for Opposition spokespeople to get up every time a clause is moved, essentially repeat the Minister’s remarks in brief and then say, “We agree,” but I will avoid that temptation. We agree with the Bill. It is well put together, we appreciate the safeguards in it, and we agree with the measures in it. The Bill is not controversial, so I will not respond to every clause; I will do so just in the few areas where we have particular points to make. Generally speaking, the Opposition are content with all the clauses.

The Bill is highly technical. It is the result of extensive consultation and discussion. I join the Minister in thanking the House of Lords for its scrutiny of the Bill and for looking thoroughly into the proposals. It is clear to me, having read the Hansard reports of all the Bill’s stages, that the Lords looked carefully at the detail in the Bill and explored some of the Law Commission recommendations that were not included in it. I referred to that on Second Reading, particularly with respect to clause 40—I know that the Minister has written to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central about that—and clause 43. Since that debate was had in the Lords, I do not intend to repeat it today.

I thank the Law Commission for its thorough work in bringing forward the proposals in the Bill. It is supported throughout the sector. I thank the charities sector for its engagement and advice. The Opposition have not tabled any amendments. It is customary for very few substantive amendments to be proposed to Law Commission Bills, so we have not tabled any. We did not feel strongly enough about any proposals that were included or missed out to necessitate an amendment.

Having made those introductory remarks, let me say that I agree with clause 1 and I hope that we will speed through the rest of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tone that he has adopted throughout. He is absolutely right; my modus operandi in politics is, “If things aren’t party political, don’t make them so,” and that is very much the case with charities. I thank both Opposition Members and Government Members for all their work. There is a great deal of expertise here, and the Bill gets to us in a good place because of the level of scrutiny that has taken place. I am more than willing to take questions now or as the Bill progresses. I also commit to moving at speed, but respectfully, through the Bill. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I have broken his rule by standing up to say, “I agree”—I will try not to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Amendments to constitution of CIOs

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 2 aligns the process for charitable incorporated organisations—CIOs—to amend their governing documents with the process in place for charitable companies. Specifically, CIOs will have greater control over the date that an amendment comes into force, offering them the ability to make changes at a time to suit their organisational objectives. The clause also sets out the considerations that the Charity Commission must make when deciding whether to consent to any alteration to a CIO’s purposes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Powers of unincorporated charities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 3 introduces a new power in section 280A of the Charities Act 2011, which replaces sections 267 to 280 of the 2011 Act, creating a simpler and more consistent process for unincorporated charities to amend any provision in their governing documents. Charity Commission consent is still required for certain amendments. Important safeguards, such as Charity Commission consent for regulated alterations—changes to a charity’s purposes, for example—remain in place to ensure that any amendments are in the best interests of the charity and its beneficiaries. Trustees can appeal to the charity tribunal against a Charity Commission decision to withhold consent for such an amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Power to amend Royal charter

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 4 allows charities established or regulated by royal charter to amend their governing documents more easily, by providing them with a new power to amend any provision in their charter where there is no express power to do so in the charter. Any amendments will be subject to approval by Her Majesty by Order in Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Orders under section 73 of the Charities Act 2011: parliamentary procedure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 5 repeals part of section 73 of the Charities Act 2011, so that when a charity amends its governing document using a section 73 scheme, which is given effect by secondary legislation, that secondary legislation will be subject to the negative parliamentary procedure by default. That is instead of distinguishing between section 73 schemes under private Acts, which follow the negative procedure, and schemes under public general Acts, which currently follow the affirmative procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Cy-près powers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 7 and 8 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

On failed fundraising appeals and so-called cy-près schemes, clauses 6 and 7 expand the circumstances in which funds from a failed fundraising appeal can be applied to other purposes. The current law requires charities to contact donors to offer to return their donation if a fundraising appeal does not achieve its target. The Bill allows charities to use funds for a different but similar purpose if the funds cannot be used for the original purpose. Any use of funds over £1,000 would need approval from the Charity Commission. This change protects donors’ wishes while reducing administrative burdens on charities.

Clause 8 confirms that any power to make schemes in respect of a charitable trust extends to charitable companies, charitable incorporated organisations or any other charity, thereby creating more consistency among different legal forms of charity. This excludes charities subject to special scheme-making procedures, such as those governed by royal charter or statute.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Definition of “permanent endowment”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 10 to 13 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 9 to 13 set out a clearer definition of “permanent endowment”, removing ambiguity and providing a definition that is more in line with the sector’s understanding of the term. The Bill confirms that the existing power to release permanent endowment under the Charities Act 2011 is available to all charities, making it available without Charity Commission consent in respect of funds up to a value of £25,000—that is up from the existing £10,000 limit—and with Charity Commission consent for funds above that value.

The Bill provides a new power for trustees to borrow from their permanent endowment, creating the ability to use permanent endowments for loss-making social investments. These changes provide trustees with more options to make the best use of their assets. There are, of course, appropriate safeguards in place, such as thresholds for the amount of permanent endowment that can be borrowed, and a maximum time period within which the funds must be paid back.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Special trusts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 14 repeals part 14 of the Charities Act 2011, which deals with special trusts, because most of it is now redundant. The content of section 287 of the 2011 Act, which sets out the definition of special trusts, is retained but transferred to section 353 of that Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Small ex gratia payments

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 16 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 15 and 16 allow charities to make relatively small payments where there is a moral obligation to make a payment but no legal power to do so. This can be done without seeking Charity Commission approval if the payment falls below the threshold set out in the Bill, which is dependent on the size of the charity. The requirement for prior authorisation from the Charity Commission, the Attorney General or, in some cases, the court to make these small payments can be burdensome, and the cost disproportionate to the size of the payments.

The clauses also rephrase the test that charities must use in deciding whether to authorise ex gratia payments. That will allow charities to delegate decisions about ex gratia payments to their staff if they wish to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Scope of Part 7 of the Charities Act 2011

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 18 to 20 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

These clauses address some unnecessary administrative burdens, clarifying and simplifying the law around the buying and selling of charity land, and removing ineffective and burdensome statutory requirements.

Clause 17 clarifies which land held for or on behalf of a charity is affected by the requirements in part 7 of the Charities Act 2011. Clause 18 makes changes to the exceptions to those requirements. It also removes redundant provisions as a consequence of the repeal of provisions in the Universities and College Estates Act 1925.

Clause 19 removes the automatic requirement for charities to advertise the disposal of land as advised in a surveyor’s report. It instead allows trustees the freedom to consider a surveyor’s advice and decide the best choice for their charity.

Clause 20 lays the groundwork for secondary legislation to expand the range of advisers a charity can call upon when seeking advice on land disposals. The current restrictions on who can advise charities in land transactions place on charities unnecessary cost burdens that can be disproportionate to the value and complexity of the land disposal. Clause 20 anticipates future changes to expand the list of advisers, allowing charities to seek a more tailored approach to disposals of land, as trustees will have more flexibility to choose the most appropriate adviser for their transaction.

[Jeff Smith]

The Opposition agree with the clauses, which are sensible measures with sufficient safeguards that should produce a clearer and easier legal framework for buying, selling, leasing and mortgaging charity land.

We note that the Government decided to reject the recommendation to remove the statutory requirement to give public notice of land disposals. We are not against that decision, but I wonder whether there is scope for keeping that under review, and whether we might move from a less all-encompassing system, with a blanket rule for all disposals, to something more risk based. We do not propose that that should be part of the Bill, but I ask the Minister to keep that under review for future legislation.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As we have seen in this tidying up of legislation and rules relating to charities, there is a need for constant and periodic review. We will of course take into account the views of the Law Commission and the Charity Commission, as well as the Opposition’s comments. If further tidying up is required in future legislation, we are always open to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Advice etc from charity trustees, officers and employees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 21 provides clarity on whether an individual associated with a charity—an employee, officer or trustee, for example—can act as the designated adviser in land disputes. There is no reason why charities should not have access to any relevant in-house expertise that is available to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Residential tenancies granted to employees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 22 allows charities to grant short-term residential tenancies to employees without Charity Commission consent by changing the definition of a “connected person” in section 118 of the Charities Act 2011. This change will make it easier for charities to use their assets to run their organisations more efficiently—to facilitate an employee’s work by allowing them to stay on site in the short term, for example—without having to seek permission from the Charity Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Information to be included in certain instruments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 23 protects buyers of charity land by resolving gaps in the wording of contracts concerning charity land transactions. This minor and technical change is necessary to save time and costs for purchasers, who currently have to check that statutory requirements have been complied with. That can deter buyers and increase costs for the charities that are selling the land.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Amendments of the Universities and College Estates Act 1925

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 24 and the associated schedule 1 simplify the Universities and College Estates Act 1925, and remove layers of administration for charities that fall under that Act. These minor technical changes clear up bureaucracy in land transactions for those charities.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial interests in relation to universities and charities. I rise to say that, generally, these technical amendments are positive and reduce burdens on universities. However, I do think that there is a wider philosophical discussion to be had—probably not for this Bill, but more broadly—about the role of universities in disposing of land that they might not have acquired themselves but were given. Often that land is given at public expense, and includes heritage assets. Universities should not see those assets as pure money transactions but as heritage transactions. They have a wider duty to the public to look after and maintain those assets, and ensure that they are disposed of in a way that continues that maintenance.

I support the reduction of bureaucracy for universities and charities, but it is important to put on the record that universities should consider not just the business importance of their estate, but its wider social importance.

[Nigel Huddleston]

As the hon. Gentleman would expect, in my role as the Minister for Heritage, I agree with the principles that he set out. I do not believe that that is strictly the purpose of the Bill, which is very much about procedure, but he has put his comments on the record. I think most hon. Members would agree with the intent and thrust of what he said about universities’ responsibility to look after their heritage assets.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 25

Working names etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 26 to 28 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Part 3 of the Bill includes clauses 25 to 28, which relate to the Charity Commission’s power to direct a charity to change its name. The adoption by a charity of a name that is similar to another charity’s name, or that is offensive, can lead to the public being misled, donations being made to the wrong charity and reputational damage for individual charities and, indeed, the entire sector.

Clause 25 extends the Charity Commission’s existing power to direct a charity to change its name to cover working names. Working names are names that charities are known by, but which are different from their registered name. Comic Relief, for example, is a working name of a charity called Charity Projects. The change closes a loophole that would allow charities to continue to operate with an inappropriate working name. The definition of “working names” has been considered in great detail and clarifications have been added to the explanatory notes in response to questions and comments from the Charity Law Association.

Clauses 26 and 27 allow the Charity Commission to delay registering a charity on the basis of an inappropriate name. They also allow the Charity Commission to delay changing a charity’s name on the register in order to give enough time to address the issue properly. This is subject to a maximum delay period. Clause 28 ensures that the Charity Commission can also direct an exempt charity to change its name, as it can for charities that are not exempt. The Charity Commission would be required by the Charities Act 2011 to first consult with an exempt charity’s principal regulator before making such a direction.

This group of changes provides the Charity Commission with clear and effective powers in the rare cases where a charity adopts an inappropriate name. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Jeff Smith]

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown jogs my memory in relation to the register of interests. I did declare in our Second Reading Committee that I am a trustee of the charity Drug Science. I perhaps ought to put that on the record in Committee as well.

The Opposition support the measures in clauses 25 to 28. They are sensible safeguards that will not only make life less bureaucratic for charities, but will actually have a role in protecting the public from being misled. They are important parts of the Bill. However, there was some concern from charity lawyers that, because the working name proposals were not part of the original report, they may not have been given as much consideration as other parts of the Bill—in terms of unintended consequences and so on. The Opposition support the measures in the clauses, but we would ask for some kind of post-legislative review to make sure that they are working correctly.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I rise generally to support clause 25, but I wish to put on record a note of caution about historic charities that might have competing or similar names. The Charity Commission must act with caution in those cases. My background is in youth organisations, of which there are a number that take the name “Scouts”. They might not be part of the official UK scouting group we know or be affiliated to the international World Organisation of the Scout Movement, but they are Scouts in the sense of the Baden-Powell scouting groups. The same goes for the Woodcraft Folk and others.

It is important that the Charity Commission does not act in a heavy-handed manner, but ensures that it is responsive and light-touch only when there is deliberate confusion taking place, not when a bigger organisation might just not like what a smaller organisation is doing, even though they have both been active for many years. I think it is important that the Charity Commission hear that. I am sure the Minister with his other hat on would agree with that as well.

[Nigel Huddleston]

In answer to the first question, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington is right that clause 25 is not based on a formal proposal in the Law Commission’s consultation. Instead, the recommendation arose from the consultation and was then discussed with the Charity Law Association. That was the genesis of this proposal, and it is not an unusual occurrence in Law Commission projects and reports for that to happen.

With regard to the criteria, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown mentioned, the message of reasonableness and being sensible is key. The Charity Commission does have operational guidance, which caseworkers use to determine whether they consider a name to be offensive. The Commission has to date not needed to issue a direction that a charity had to change its name because it was considered offensive. We do not consider that the proposed changes will change the frequency or likelihood of a controversy where a charity’s name is found to be offensive, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments, which seem eminently sensible, have been noted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Powers relating to appointments of trustees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 29 allows the Charity Commission to confirm that the election of a trustee that may previously have been considered defective or uncertain should be treated as if a valid election had taken place. It will create consistency with the commission’s powers to determine a charity’s members and provide certainty going forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Remuneration of charity trustees etc providing goods or services to charity

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 31 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 30 addresses an anomaly in the current law under which trustees can be paid for services provided to their charity for both goods and services but not for goods alone. Allowing the remuneration of trustees for the provision of goods gives charities the opportunity to use their in-house contacts and to potentially source goods at better than market rates, saving valuable funds.

Clause 31 gives the Charity Commission powers to order a charity to pay a trustee for work they have completed for the charity where it would be unjust not to pay the trustee for that work. Such payments are rare and currently require authorisation by the court: although they will continue to be rare, the clause means the commission can provide authorisation, which will avoid the time and expense of going to court.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Trustee of charitable trust: status as trust corporation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 32 represents a minor technical change that automatically confers trust corporation status on any trustee of a charitable trust that is a body corporate. It will be particularly useful in a variety of scenarios, including incorporations and mergers. It will save charities time and expense, as the current routes to obtaining trust corporation status are time-consuming and cumbersome.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Gifts to merged charity

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 33 enables gifts to a charity that has since merged to go to the new merged charity. It will mean that charities no longer have to maintain a shell charity on the register simply to collect gifts for a charity that has ceased to operate. It will save them and the Charity Commission an administrative burden.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Vesting declarations: exclusions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 35 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 34 changes the types of property that are excluded from transfer during a merger. It is a technical change that clarifies charity law on mergers and removes redundant and outdated sections, including pre-1925 language on mortgages.

Clause 35 is a minor change to ensure the language in section 306 of the Charities Act 2011 is consistent with the new definition of “permanent endowment” brought in by clause 9 of the Bill. These technical changes remove administrative barriers, meaning a simpler and more cost-effective process for charities seeking to merge.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Costs incurred in relation to Tribunal proceedings etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 36 allows the charity tribunal to make authorised costs orders to protect trustees from individually carrying the costs of charity proceedings. An authorised costs order will confirm in advance that the cost of proceedings can properly come from a charity’s funds, preventing trustees from being discouraged from raising genuine grievances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Public notice as regards Commission orders etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 37 extends the Charity Commission’s discretionary power to give public notice, or require a charity to give public notice, for an order under the Charities Act 2011. This power will now extend to instances where the Charity Commission is required to give consent, for example, if a charity wishes to change the purposes in its governing document.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

“Connected person”: illegitimate children

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 39 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 38 and 39 remove language that is outdated from the definition of a connected person. They also allow for secondary legislation to change this definition in the future. The ability to amend the definition of a connected person through secondary legislation provides the Secretary of State with the flexibility to ensure the regulatory regime is effective in modern times.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Minor and consequential provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 40 gives effect to schedule 2, which contains minor and consequential amendments resulting from the Bill. Where appropriate, these amendments have been referred to and explained above under the clauses to which they relate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 41

Extent, commencement and short title

[Nigel Huddleston]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 41, page 30, line 15, leave out subsection (7).

This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 41 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted in the Lords. For Bills starting in the House of Lords, a privilege amendment is included to recognise the right of this place to control any charges on the people and on public funds. It is standard practice to remove such amendments at this stage of the Bill’s passage through the House of Commons.

I also speak to clause 41 in this group. Clause 41 makes provision about the extent, the coming into force and the short title of the Bill. Clause 41 will come into effect on the day on which the Act is passed. Other provisions will come into force when the Secretary of State makes regulations by statutory instrument. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will work with the Charity Commission on an implementation plan to bring the provisions into effect in stages after Royal Assent.

[Jeff Smith]

I will speak very briefly because this is really a technical clause. The Opposition agree with the Government’s amendment and with clause 41. The Minister referred to the implementation plan; Baroness Barran said at Committee stage in the Lords that the Government would publish an implementation plan before the Bill completes its passage through the House. Given that we are now at the end of the Committee stage and we do not yet have a date for Report and Third Reading, I will put on record my request to the Minister for an update on the progress of an implementation plan.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments. DCMS is working with the Charity Commission on the Bill’s implementation. We will announce further information in due course. If I am able to provide more information shortly, I will give it to the hon. Gentleman and others.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I would like to thank you, Mr Twigg, all the officials, stakeholders, the charities themselves, the Commissions and everybody involved in the Bill’s progress today. I thank the Opposition, as well as Members on this side of the House, for the co-operation and attention they have given to this very important Bill. It will make a meaningful difference to the charities impacted.

[Jeff Smith]

May I briefly echo the Minister’s comments? It is a highly technical Bill and an awful lot of work has gone on behind the scenes by the Law Commission, the Lords and the Clerks, which we should put on record. I thank all who have been involved, and also thank members of the Committee for their attendance today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

English Football League Governance: Derby County FC

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Given the nature of an urgent question, does the Minister want to come in or shall I take this?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

The hon. Member may be confusing two points. I am aware that there is a petition being processed at this moment in time, but today’s response was to an urgent question. I am sorry that I was unable to be at the Dispatch Box because I had other business scheduled in the House. The Charities Bill had been scheduled for a long time and, by just a few minutes, time did not allow me to be here.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for standing in for me. As I hope I have proven over the past two years in this role, I am always open to discussion with any colleagues, on any side of the House. I have had many conversations with colleagues relating to Derby County FC, and I would happily speak to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) . There is nothing party political about the issue and we all need to work together.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I do not think I need add anything further to that response.

We should now have the presentation of a Bill, but I do not see the Member present, so we will move on to the ten-minute rule Bill.

Charities Bill [ Lords ]

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Second reading committee
Tuesday 18th January 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee recommends that the Charities Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. This Bill brings in modest but important technical reforms that will allow charities to function more efficiently by implementing the majority of the recommendations from the Law Commission’s “Technical Issues in Charity Law” report. The reforms in the Bill are the product of extensive consultation and represent a great example of the Law Commission’s work to simplify complex areas of the law, and I am pleased to be discussing the Bill’s Second Reading in Committee.

Currently, charities are too often burdened by complicated regulation and administrative costs. This Bill will simplify processes, in turn enabling charities to ensure that their focus and resources are for public good. I thank my noble Friends Baroness Barran and Lord Parkinson for guiding this Bill so ably through the other place, and I put on record my thanks to all peers in the other place, including Lord Hodgson and so many others, who contributed to the thorough scrutiny of this Bill, ensuring it reaches us in good shape.

Both the Law Commission and the Charity Commission have provided their expertise to enable the Bill to reach this stage, and I am grateful for their continued support as it continues its passage through Parliament. I am delighted that the Bill has received cross-party support and has been warmly welcomed by the charity sector. I hope it continues to receive deserved recognition through the remaining stages.

It is important to remind the Committee, as did the Chair, that this Bill follows the special procedure for non-controversial Law Commission Bills. This means that the Bill is limited to implementing those recommendations from the Law Commission’s report. Under this special procedure, the Bill was introduced into the other place, where it was subject to considerable scrutiny, and the Government made some necessary amendments to the Bill. I am grateful to all those involved in making these changes as they will help fulfil the Bill’s aims more efficiently.

Charities legislation can be complicated, uncertain and unduly burdensome. That unfortunately forces many charities to obtain expensive legal advice, and distracts them from carrying out their charitable purposes. Not only does overly complex legislation negatively impact charities, but it hinders the Charity Commission in carrying out its important regulatory role. The changes in this Bill are therefore necessary for both the charity sector and its regulator, providing charities with more flexibility, time, and resources to focus on their charitable purposes while reforming unnecessary or overly bureaucratic processes.

At the same time the Bill maintains appropriate regulatory oversight, protections and safeguards, ensuring the protection of charities from abuse. Certainty and clarity in the law is of the utmost importance, and the Bill will provide trustees with increased flexibility to act in their charity’s best interests. There is no doubt that we owe both our charity sector and our regulator a clear and simple legal framework. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the Bill strikes a sensible balance between protecting charities’ assets and avoiding unnecessary expense and regulation.

This is a highly technical Bill implementing several important changes, and I will shed light on some of its main contents to help Members understand its positive impacts. This Bill will simplify processes for amending governing documents that are currently cumbersome and inconsistent across different charity structures. It will do that by creating a new, clearer statutory power for all unincorporated charities to amend their governing documents by resolution. That will align amendment mechanisms as far as possible across the different legal structures that charities can take. It will also be more straightforward for royal charter charities to make amendments to their governing documents, providing a new power to amend any provision, subject to Privy Council approval.

The Bill will also make it easier to use funds from a failed fundraising appeal for other similar purposes, which has long been a challenge faced by many charities. That will save time and resources for charities where a fundraising appeal has failed, for example, by preventing them from having to search for and contact donors of small donations to ask them if they would like their donation returned because a fundraising appeal did not reach its goal or raised too much money for its specific purpose.

The Bill also makes changes to trustees’ powers in relation to permanent endowment—assets held by the charity with a restriction on the use of capital. Trustees will be able to exercise greater flexibility in making decisions that are in the best interests of their charity, allowing them to better utilise their permanent endowment, whilst protecting the enduring nature of such funds. Alongside greater flexibility, a clearer definition of permanent endowment has been provided. It includes a new power for trustees to borrow from their permanent endowment and streamlines the existing power available to trustees to release those funds.

The Bill also makes changes relating to ex gratia payments—payments that charities feel morally obliged to make, but lack a legal power to do so. For example, if someone left money to a charity in their will, but gave their solicitor instructions to grant some of the amount to a family member instead, but then died before the will had been changed, legally the charity must take the money, but it may feel morally obliged to honour the gift to the family member. Currently it would need to decide whether to make the payment at a trustee meeting, and then wait for Charity Commission, Attorney General or court approval before making such a payment. That is time consuming and can involve costs that are disproportionate to the value of the payment itself. The changes in the Bill will allow charities to make relatively small ex gratia payments without seeking Charity Commission consent. The changes will also allow trustees, if they so wish, to delegate the decision to make these payments to the charity’s staff.

Currently, there are a number of burdensome statutory requirements around disposals of land by charities. The measures in this Bill will tackle those challenges by creating a simpler process and paves the way for secondary legislation to broaden the pool of advisers at a trustees’ disposal.

The Charity Commission will also be provided with supplementary powers in respect of misleading, offensive or very similar charity names to remove anomalies and prevent an inappropriate name appearing on the register of charities.

There is no doubt that charities cannot function without the vital role of trustees, almost all of whom are volunteers. The Bill will, subject to appropriate safeguards, allow charities to source goods from trustees, when doing so would be in the charity’s best interests, by resolving a gap in the current law. The Charity Commission will also be able to authorise trustees to be paid for specific work they have carried out for the benefit oftheir charity in limited circumstances.

In relation to saving administrative costs when it comes to incorporations and mergers, this Bill will ensure legacies in wills can be automatically transferred to a merged charity and will automatically confer trust corporation status on corporate charities in their capacity as trustees of charitable trusts.

On reducing burdens on trustees, protection will be provided to them to avoid charities being discouraged from pursuing litigation due to the risk of trustees personally having to pay the costs of charity tribunal proceedings.

Collectively, the measures will ensure that charity law works effectively for those delivering vital charitable services, especially given the huge pressure the sector has faced during the course of the pandemic. The measures will also ensure appropriate regulatory oversight and safeguards are in place to maintain public trust in this important sector.

The many notable benefits of the provisions I have outlined will have positive impacts on the sector. Small charities will especially benefit from the simplified legislation and reduced administrative burdens as they may not have access to legal advice. The changes will also make life easier for trustees by reducing administrative burdens and easing some of the regulatory pressures they face. Trustees will be able to act with confidence in their charity’s interests. In turn, we anticipate public trust to flow from charities working unhindered and able to focus fully on their charitable mission.

I reiterate that this Bill brings in welcome reform to charity law. It has widespread support and, as I have outlined, it is the product of extensive consultation and has been subject to rigorous scrutiny. I am honoured to have the pleasure of bringing this Bill before this Committee and the House. I hope the Committee will give this Bill its full support, so we can proceed swiftly with its remaining passages and begin working with the Charity Commission on its implementation. I commend the Bill to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my opposite number, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, and the hon. Member for York Central, who has extensive and significant knowledge in the charitable sector and civil society overall—I applaud her work over many years.

I am pleased that the Bill has such obvious support across the House and in the other place, and I look forward to taking it through the Commons. We share the ambition that charities should not be weighed down by disproportionate or unnecessary burdens, so that they can focus on their charitable objectives and on what they do best. Charities are a force for good in society and, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington said, England and Wales alone have 167,000 registered charities, all of which carry out excellent and indispensable work to help those in need. By working closely with the Law Commission and the Charity Commission to provide consistency and clarity in law through this Bill, charities can feel confident that we have understood their concerns and that we are on the right path to help them fulfil their purposes.

To address some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, he was right to express a sense of urgency here, because we are trying to address quite a number of issues. We would all like to move at speed, but this is an incredibly complex area of law. We have had the challenges of dealing with covid, but there has been extensive stakeholder engagement. I understand the sense of urgency, but this is a complex area, and we wanted to ensure that we did things correctly.

On recommendation 40 of the Law Commission’s “Technical Issues in Charity Law” report, the Government stand by their decision to reject it and set out its reasoning in their response. The removal of the safeguards in section 115 of the 2011 Act would be a disproportionate response to the unlikely possibility of an application being brought to the Charity Commission that created a conflict of interest. Such a scenario, if it ever arose, could in any event be addressed in other ways. However, I am happy to discuss the matter with hon. Members or to write to them if they have outstanding concerns.

On recommendation 43, the Law Commission recommended that the Charity Commission should be able to make a reference to the charity tribunal without first having to get consent from the Attorney General. The Government rejected that recommendation on the basis that the Attorney General has a duty on the Crown’s behalf to protect charitable interests in England and Wales, and the mechanism assists the Attorney General in fulfilling that duty. The Government concluded:

“The Attorney General’s consent for references to the Charity Tribunal is an important element in the system which should not be removed.”

The matter was thoroughly debated during the Bill’s passage through the other place, and the amendment to insert recommendation 43 was not accepted.

Charities have played an unprecedented role throughout the course of the pandemic, and the measures in this Bill will enable them to carry on doing their vital work in communities throughout the country without unnecessary controls. I thank hon. Members for their contributions today, and I hope this Second Reading Committee will support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Dormant Assets Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email.

We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates, and the Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on any or all of the amendments within the group. A Member can also speak more than once in a single debate.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate to me whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.

Clause 1

The dormant assets scheme: overview

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Ghani. I am sure you will keep us all in order.

I thank colleagues on both sides of the Chamber, and indeed in the other place, for the co-operative and constructive way in which we have proceeded so far with the Bill. There is broad support across the House for the Bill, and although there are some areas of disagreement, I am aware that they tend to be on details of implementation, rather than on the substance, purpose or intent of the Bill. To that extent, I will commit to moving at speed on the non-controversial parts of the Bill while ensuring that there is opportunity for discussion. Indeed, hopefully I will be able to address colleagues’ questions and concerns, some of which I am aware of already. I am sure that others will come up during the course of our discussions.

Clause 1 provides an overview of the operation of the scheme, which enables eligible participants to transfer money from dormant assets to an authorised reclaim fund. Having determined how much it must retain in order to meet any future reclaims, the reclaim fund distributes the surplus to the national lottery community fund, in accordance with part 1 of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. The clause confirms that the scheme will be expanded as a whole, encompassing the new assets alongside bank and building society accounts while ensuring that this does not affect the continued operation of the provisions in the 2008 Act.

Subsection (3) sets out the main features of the dormant asset scheme, which mirror those specified in the 2008 Act. For example, beneficial owners can always reclaim the full amount owed to them. Participants transfer the dormant money to the reclaim fund, and owners therefore engage with participants, rather than the reclaim fund, in order to make a reclaim. The clause also confirms that relevant activities can be undertaken by anyone acting on the institution’s behalf. For example, an insurance provider can outsource tracing exercises to a tracing agency working to find the owner on its behalf.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be able to respond to this important Bill on behalf of the Opposition, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington.

I remind colleagues that it was a Labour Government who in 2007 first brought forward two consultations into unclaimed assets residing in banks and building societies. This led to subsequent legislation that would allow for the release of these assets after efforts were made to find their owners. The scheme was first established in 2008 by Labour through the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. The scheme has proved to be a huge success, with around £745 million being distributed to good causes across the UK, with funding for the devolved nations being distributed through the Barnett formula.

Currently, 24 banks and building societies participate in the scheme. It was always intended that the dormant assets scheme would broaden the financial products to which the legislation applies. Although the Bill makes some progress and Labour supports the need for consultation, we urge the scheme to go further. With the right safeguards in place to find the owners of assets, unclaimed winnings from gambling, pension assets and physical assets could be considered in the future too.

Labour supports the measures to ensure that all efforts are made to identify asset owners before moving on to the more robust Reclaim Fund Ltd—a public body. The independence of the fund demonstrates confidence in the process, and Labour supports this framework. However, we believe that more can be done to tighten timelines around consultation during the next stages of the Bill, and that greater scrutiny can be brought to assess the rigor of the Reclaim Fund Ltd to prevent it going into any deficit. Robust financial modelling set up under Labour has protected the fund so far, but it must be kept under review.

Labour believes that a community wealth fund should be able to benefit from the fund. Labour is also grateful for the proposed new section 18A in clause 29. This important provision will enable dormant assets to go on to create community wealth funds. These funds are able to make grants and other payments to support the provision of social infrastructure to further the wellbeing of communities suffering from high levels of deprivation. Community wealth funds are integral to levelling up, and the potential for funds generated through dormant assets to transform lives is huge.

The most deprived areas across the country often have the worst third sector infrastructure, and proposed new section 18A in clause 29 paves the way for increased governance and organisation too. Labour believes that the principles of the Bill and the 2008 Act are too broad to provide such a framework without proposed new section 18A and that the principle needs to be framed in primary legislation. We do not need further pilots of consultations, as there are already 150 projects at various stages of development. These projects will continue to be evaluated, whereas clause 29 brings forward the opportunity to pour investment into funds centred around social transformation. I know that many colleagues feel passionately about the benefits that these funds can bring to their constituencies, and hopefully we will hear some of these contributions later. In the meantime I urge the Government to support clause 29, which is absolutely central to their levelling-up agenda.

Labour firmly believes that further scrutiny of the Reclaim Fund Ltd is vital if we are to ensure that assets are used for good causes. New clause 1 is central to ensuring proper scrutiny and calls on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually. New clause 2 has the potential to improve how funds are reviewed and distributed to good causes, a move that could see more funding made available to the causes that need it most.

Finally, I am sure that Members will share my thanks to the organisations that have shown their support and have been pivotal in taking the Reclaim Fund Ltd forward. The same sentiments go for those participating in the dormant assets scheme. Their contributions and engagement have ensured that the fund has been made available to a huge range of good causes. Labour has always supported moves to multiply the fund’s benefits and will continue to do so as the Bill progresses.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair again, Ms Ghani. There is a saying that we would all do well to remember every day of our political lives; it is amazing what we can achieve if nobody cares who gets the credit. I do not hesitate to give credit to a Conservative Government, who I will often oppose vigorously, for improving what was already a good piece of legislation introduced by a former Labour Government.

Some 20 or 25 years ago, a young SNP councillor and local GP in my home town of Glenrothes picked up on this issue through the work she was doing with constituents and patients—in particular with the families of recently deceased patients. She started pestering all the banks and buildings societies in Glenrothes. Crucially, she started asking officials at Fife Council what they could do about it. It may be a complete coincidence that it was a Labour MP, as Chancellor and then as Prime Minister, who eventually took those concerns and sorted them out on the statute book, because it was Gordon Brown who, as Prime Minister, effectively drove this legislation through. It may be a complete coincidence; it may be that that young SNP councillor and GP had nothing to do with it, but given that I have been married to her for the best part of 40 years, Members may forgive me for saying she had part of the credit.

As I said, the 2008 Act was a good piece of legislation, and the Bill carries out welcome improvements and extensions. We have to realise that the days when most people kept most of their money in a bank account have gone. Even people who do not have significant amounts of money to their name will sometimes spread it over a number of different kinds of places. That means that if someone cannot be traced for whatever reason, it is important that any assets that they had are used for a good cause—if the original owner has no purpose for them.

Probably the biggest administrative burden in the Bill comes from the fact that we have to recognise that this money still belongs to somebody. We might not know if they are alive or dead. We might have no idea where they are. But they have to be allowed at any time to come back and reclaim what is theirs. Some of the quite complicated requirements that are put on the funds will sometimes be a nuisance to administrators of the fund, but they are important because this is not money that has been seized or forfeited due to any wrongdoing. It is money that legally and morally still belongs to someone else.

It is appropriate for Parliament to legislate to attempt to use that money for a good cause if all indications are that the person who originally owned it has no further interest in it. On that basis, I will have a few brief comments to make on particular parts of the Bill, but I welcome it and hope it will be given a speedy passage in its remaining stages.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will briefly respond. The hon. Members make some important points about why there is such broad support for the Bill. It is because it has such a fundamental impact on improving people’s lives across the country on a day-to-day basis. It is therefore very important, and it is not surprising that it has such support.

It is good to hear from the hon. Member for Glenrothes about not only the political support, but the emotional support that exists for various reasons. He raises an important point about the Bill’s fundamental underlying principles, of reuniting and repatriating the money first and foremost to owners—the principle of always being able to reclaim the money; of course, it is a voluntary scheme and we therefore thank the participants—and of additionality. Those core principles are still pervasive throughout the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Transfer of eligible insurance proceeds to reclaim fund

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 3 and 4 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 2 to 4 define the insurance assets and participants in scope of the scheme. They also set out an owner’s right to reclaim and the definitions of dormancy for insurance assets. Clause 2 provides that an insurance institution can transfer dormant insurance proceeds to an authorised reclaim fund. It also defines the type of insurance institutions that are not eligible to participate in the scheme.

Clause 3 defines the insurance assets in scope of the scheme. These are dormant proceeds of a long-term insurance contract, provided that it is not a with-profits policy, an industrial branch policy, or a policy that is the subject of a trust. They also cannot be held in a lifetime ISA.

Clause 4 defines dormancy for insurance assets. Insurance assets are classed as dormant if any of the following four conditions are met: first, that the person whose life is insured is deceased and the participant is satisfied that there is no owner; secondly, that at least seven years have passed since the participant was notified that the person whose life was insured has died, and there has been no communication from the owner, anyone acting on their behalf, or anyone administering the deceased person’s estate; thirdly, that records indicate that the person whose life was insured would be at least 120 years old; or, fourthly, that at least seven years have passed since the end of the contractual term and there has been no communication from the owner or anyone acting on their behalf since that time. I therefore beg to move that clauses 2 to 4 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

As there seems to be agreement, Minister, do you wish to respond?

[Nigel Huddleston]

indicated dissent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Transfer of eligible pension benefits to reclaim fund

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to consider clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 5 to 7 define the pensions assets and participants that are in scope of the scheme. They also set out an owner’s right to reclaim pensions assets and the definitions of dormancy for pension assets.

Contract-based defined contribution personal pensions will be included in the scheme, in line with industry’s recommendation, with the exception of any products in which the policyholder has been automatically enrolled. Income withdrawals as a stand-alone product, as well as when they are owed as part of a personal pension scheme, are also included. Occupational pension schemes are out of scope of the Bill.

Clause 5 provides that a pension institution can transfer dormant pension benefits to an authorised reclaim fund. Clause 6 defines the pension assets that are in scope of the scheme, which are: dormant income withdrawals that have become payable; personal pensions with money purchase arrangements that have become payable; and personal pensions with money purchase arrangements available to become payable.

Personal pension schemes whose owners were automatically enrolled are excluded, as is any scheme with sums invested in with-profit funds. As I have mentioned, occupational pension schemes are out of scope of the Bill. Personal pension schemes are only in scope of the scheme if the conversion to cash happens because the owner is deceased.

Clause 7 defines dormancy for pension assets, in a way that is consistent with the principles that I outlined in my previous speech.

I therefore beg to move that clauses 5 to 7 stand part of the Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these clauses. We welcome the first step towards inclusion of pension assets in this legislation. However, I will press him on the potential for expansion of the clause to include further pension assets, as he has outlined. After all, broadening the Bill to include further pension assets will allow further funding to reach the huge range of good causes that are currently benefiting from this process.

As the Minister knows, pension assets were recommended for transfer in consultation. However, the Government have instead decided to restrict the Bill to just cash assets for the time being. I understand from exchanges on Second Reading and in the other place that the Government are reluctant to make this expansion while we wait for the pensions dashboard to be properly up and running, but given the long delays around the introduction of the pensions dashboard, I would be grateful if he could make some commitment as to the timetable for the further widening of this scheme with regard to pension funds.

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to respond?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Very briefly.

Of course, further on in the Bill there are processes in place, which I am sure we will come to, to enable the further expansion of additional assets into the scheme. I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. On Second Reading and elsewhere, the potential expansion to other schemes, including to non-cash and non-financial assets, has been proposed. There is a mechanism to enable that expansion to happen in the future. Therefore, this Bill will enable that to happen. However, I am afraid that at this moment in time we cannot make a commitment to that in the Bill. Nevertheless, I certainly understand the hon. Lady’s intent. Again, I think that there is cross-party support for us to investigate those options in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Transfer of eligible amount owing by virtue of a collective scheme investment to reclaim fund

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 9 to 11 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 8 to 11 define the investment assets and participants in scope of the scheme. Clause 8 provides that an investment institution can transfer a dormant eligible amount owing by virtue of a collective scheme investment to an authorised reclaim fund. Clause 9 defines the investment assets in scope of the scheme. These are dormant proceeds of shares or units in collective scheme investments, and distributions, redemption proceeds and orphan moneys attributable to collective scheme investments. Client money is also in scope, but is covered separately in clauses 12 and 13.

Clause 10 defines dormancy for investment assets. Reflecting market practice and Financial Conduct Authority rules, this clause provides that share or unit conversion proceeds can be classed as dormant if the shareholder has been “gone-away” for 12 years. The clause defines “gone-away” broadly to accommodate a range of industry practices that are expected to evolve over time.

Clause 11 defines the right to payment that the owner of a dormant investment asset has against an authorised reclaim fund.

[Peter Grant]

I have no objection to these clauses standing part of the Bill, but will the Minister clarify one query? The Bill excludes lifetime ISAs, if their transfer would incur any kind of tax liability to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is understandable. Will the Minister explain in what kinds of circumstances that might happen? On the face of it, there appears to be an inconsistency in that a lifetime ISA might be liable to tax on transfer, when the whole assumption is that the person who owns that lifetime ISA is probably dead, although we cannot prove that for certain. Is there an inconsistency there? If not, what are the circumstances in which there might be a tax liability that would emerge from the transfer of an asset belonging to somebody when, in the eyes of the law, that person is probably dead?

[Nigel Huddleston]

There was extensive consultation on what should and should not be included. The hon. Gentleman raises the point that some assets may in the future be potentially included. We want to be careful at this stage and not include things where potential liabilities could incur. We got to this point after extensive consultation with industry, and I think we are comfortable with it. As I said to the hon. Member for Pontypridd earlier on, there is potential scope to change what assets and financial products may or may not be included, but given the advice of the industry, at the moment, we are being cautious; I think that is the appropriate approach.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Transfer of eligible client money to reclaim fund

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 13 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 12 and 13 define the client money assets and participants in scope of the scheme. Clause 12 provides that an investment institution can transfer dormant client money to an authorised reclaim fund. Client money is only captured by clauses 12 and 13 if it is held by an investment institution and cannot be transferred to the scheme under any other provisions in the Bill.

Clause 13 defines dormancy for client money assets. Again, this clause defines “gone-away” broadly to accommodate a range of industry practices that are expected to evolve over time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Transfer of eligible proceeds or distribution to reclaim fund

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 15 and 16 stand part.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 14 to 16 define the securities assets and participants in scope of the scheme. Clause 14 provides that a traded public company can transfer dormant proceeds or a distribution relating to a share to an authorised reclaim fund.

Clause 15 defines the securities assets in scope of the scheme: dormant share conversion proceeds; cash distributions from a share; and proceeds from corporate actions. As practice varies, share conversion proceeds in the securities sector are in scope only on the condition that the terms governing them enable a gone-away shareholder to reclaim the price of the share at the point at which it was converted to cash.

Clause 16 defines dormancy for securities assets. Share conversion proceeds or a distribution can be classed as dormant if the shareholder has been defined as “gone-away” for at least 12 years. This clause defines “gone-away” broadly, to accommodate a range of industry practices that are expected to evolve over time, as with other products.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Transfers: general

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The proceedings so far may have seemed very dry, but I can assure hon. Members that actually what we have done is to enable potentially hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds to be expended from the scheme to go to good causes. The clauses may sound dry, but actually that was a fundamentally important aspect of the Bill.

Clause 17 makes cross-cutting provisions on transfers into the scheme. This clause provides that a transfer into the scheme is not in itself a breach of trust or fiduciary duties. The clause also confirms that the right to reclaim accommodates situations in which that right has been passed on after the previous owner has died. Finally, if an institution has been succeeded by another—for example, through a takeover—following a transfer into the scheme, the transfer provisions in clauses 2, 5, 8, 12 and 14 will apply to the successor.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Interpretation of Part 1

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

I call Minister Huddleston—delivering without being dry, I believe.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will try, Ms Ghani. Very simply, clause 18 defines and clarifies terms used in part 1 of the Bill that are relevant to more than one section.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Power to extend the dormant assets scheme to cover new dormant assets

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

The pressure is back on you, Minister Huddleston.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Thank you, Ms Ghani. Clause 19 is an important clause. It provides a power to the Secretary of State or the Treasury to bring additional asset classes within scope of the scheme, as we alluded to earlier. That might include ones that have already been proposed for inclusion but whose suitability needs further exploration, new ones, or ones where dormancy has not yet been identified as an issue. The power also enables the Secretary of State or the Treasury to amend the current asset classes so that they can cover new types of assets, and make consequential amendments.

This clause allows the Secretary of State or the Treasury to amend part 1 of the Bill or the 2008 Act by regulations for that purpose, and makes further provision about what such regulations must and can include—for example, identifying when dormancy exists and ensuring that the owner has a right to payment against an authorised reclaim fund. It provides that the Secretary of State or the Treasury may make regulations to enable participants to convert a dormant non-cash asset into cash in order for it to be transferred into the scheme where the asset’s terms do not provide for this. It then makes further provision about the use of this power—for example, that it can be used only with a view to the cash being transferred into the dormant assets scheme.

The clause also ensures that all assets currently in scope cannot be excluded or have their associated definitions of dormancy altered using this power. Finally, it provides that any regulations made under the power must be approved by both Houses of Parliament.

[Jeff Smith]

As the Minister says, this important clause goes to the heart of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve with it, and we supports its aims. Like the Minister, I welcome the millions of pounds that could go to good causes as a result of the assets that we have just agreed, as well as those that could be agreed as a result of the clause.

Having seen the success of the scheme, we want to build on and expand it. We agree that it makes sense to give the Secretary of State or the Treasury the ability to expand the potential of the fund not by bringing back primary legislation, but by consulting—that is important—and proposing new assets to add to the scheme by regulations. We welcome the approval and the important oversight of those regulations by both Houses of Parliament. Indeed, the clause has the potential to save future generations of MPs from sitting in a future Bill Committee for another dormant assets Bill. [Laughter.]

We particularly welcome the measures as a first step towards the potential inclusion of future pension assets in the legislation. May I press the Minister a little more on that? I think the Minister agreed in principle to the inclusion of additional pension assets, but my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd asked for an indication on when those might be included, because we are keen to expand the fund appropriately. The Minister talked about a mechanism for that inclusion, but he did not want to put a commitment on the face of Bill. It would be nice to know what sort of timescale we are looking at for including future pension assets.

The clause really goes to the heart of the Bill’s purpose: how can we expand the good work the scheme has done, and what other assets can we use to benefit good causes? People have talked about all kinds of different assets that could be included in future, including foreign currency cash balances, empty properties, national savings, proceeds of crime, trust funds and lifetime ISAs, which the hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned.

We are keen for all those ideas to be explored to build on the good work of the scheme, and we hope to hear in future suggestions that we have not yet discussed. We agree that the Government should be free to explore them, and we believe that the Bill contains appropriate safeguards and oversight, so we welcome this clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

As discussed, the Bill includes a provision to allow expansion into new asset classes by secondary legislation in the future. As the hon. Member for Glenrothes suggested, it will not therefore require primary legislation; therefore we may save colleagues from some painful processes in the future. However, it will still have the scrutiny of both Houses, which is really important.

Before any power is extended, further work will need to be undertaken to identify new asset classes and facilitate their inclusion, and regulations are subject to draft affirmative procedure, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny. I cannot commit to a particular timeline at the moment, but of course the overall operation of the Bill will be reviewed three years and five years after Royal Assent. However, that does not preclude ongoing activity or review; when we debate later clauses and proposed new clauses, we will discuss in detail the scrutiny and review, annual reporting and so on that can take place. Those will enable review to happen, and therefore proposals for change could happen organically.

I cannot outline a specific timeline at the moment, because of course that will depend on what is proposed by the House and others, but there is a mechanism for ongoing review in the Bill for the important reasons that hon. Members have outlined. There may well be future asset classes, perhaps products that we are not even aware of or do not even exist at the moment, that should and could be included in future versions of the dormant asset scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Return of surplus alternative scheme assets

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 20 introduces a means for the reclaim fund to transfer additional surplus money from the alternative scheme back to the participant to be distributed to its chosen charity, in accordance with section 2 of the 2008 Act. The alternative scheme enables firms with balance sheets below £7 billion to transfer an agreed proportion of dormant account funds to the reclaim fund, and nominate a local or aligned charity to receive the surplus. As it has with the main scheme, Reclaim Fund Ltd may review, in time, the proportion of assets it reserves from the alternative scheme on an ongoing basis and, where prudent, reduce reserve rates to release surplus funds.

Currently, such surplus funds from the alternative scheme can go only to the National Lottery Community Fund. Clause 20 will ensure that the funds are directed to charities of the participants’ choice for the benefit of local communities, in line with the principles of the alternative scheme. Aside from this, the alternative scheme will remain as it is. I commend clause 20 to the Committee.

[Jeff Smith]

Labour supports the provisions in clause 20 relating to the alternative scheme, which enables eligible smaller building societies and banks to support local causes of their choice. It is right that, if an authorised reclaim fund remodels the proportion of funds that it reserves for reclaims, any surplus money should go back to organisations participating in the alternative scheme, to be distributed to their chosen local charities.

We actively encourage authorised reclaim funds to assess whether a greater proportion of the fund could go to good causes, based on what we now know about how many people are likely to reclaim their assets and how they can manage their funds. That is the intention of Labour’s new clause 2, which we will discuss later. We support measures in the Bill that will allow that to work in practice.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I do not have much further to add. I know that this topic will be debated later in Committee, but I completely agree with the principles that the hon. Gentleman outlines.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Unwanted assets

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The dormant assets scheme requires participants to have attempted to reunite an asset with its owner before it can be classed as dormant and transferred to the scheme. When reunification efforts are successful, the owner may decide that they no longer want their asset. That could be, for example, because the asset is of low value and the owner does not want the administrative effort of reclaiming it—such as, say, £5 in a deposit account, a share worth £2 and so on. Clause 21 enables these unwanted assets to be donated to the scheme. The owner must declare that no other person has a right in or over the asset, and an authorised reclaim fund must consent to the transfer. Finally, this clause provides that unwanted assets cannot be reclaimed from unauthorised reclaim funds, given that they have been donated by the owner.

[Jeff Smith]

I am starting to do what I said I would not do. We agree with the clause, and think that it will encourage more charitable giving, resulting in more money going to the scheme and meaning more money for good causes. We support the clause—I am going to stop repeating and agreeing.

[The Chair]

Agreement is good, Mr Smith.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Third party rights and interests

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 22 ensures that third-party rights and interests are preserved when an asset is transferred into the scheme. A participant or the reclaim fund will not always know whether third-party rights or interests exist in relation to an asset. Therefore, if a third party legitimately asserts their rights or interests in relation to a dormant asset following transfer, they will have an equivalent right of reclaim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

That is correct.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Arrangements between reclaim fund and institutions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I have no problem with the Opposition agreeing on things—it is quite nice to hear. I think that it speaks to the broad support for the Bill, and therefore it is important that we get on record that there is such agreement in so many areas of the Bill.

Clause 23 introduces requirements on the reclaim fund and participating institutions to have appropriate arrangements in place before the transfer of funds into the dormant assets scheme. The Government want to ensure—as do the Opposition—that only genuinely dormant assets are transferred into the scheme. The clause therefore specifies that the agreements must require participants to take steps to reunite asset owners with their lost assets. The requirement is not new, but making provision for it in the Bill will strengthen existing practices that have ensured the scheme’s success over the past decade.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Effect of insolvency etc of institutions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 24 sets out the effect of a participating institution becoming insolvent on an owner’s right to reclaim. The reclaim fund will be liable for meeting a reclaim for an asset it receives, even if the participant that transferred it becomes insolvent or winds up. However, in those cases, an owner’s entitlement will be limited to the amount that they would have received from the participant in its insolvency. That may result in the owner’s entitlement being reduced.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Disclosure of information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Very simply, clause 25 provides that common law or other obligations relating to confidentiality do not prevent the disclosure of information.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Meaning of “authorised reclaim fund”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 26 names RFL as the authorised reclaim fund and provides the Treasury with the power to add, substitute and remove the name of reclaim funds from the Bill in the future, should that be required.

[Jeff Smith]

We accept the definition of authorised reclaim fund and Reclaim Fund Ltd being conferred with that status. It makes sense, I guess, for the Treasury to be able to add or remove companies as appropriate or as required. Can the Minister clarify as to whether he foresees that being used only in the event of Reclaim Fund Ltd ceasing to function or becoming insolvent, or whether he would wish to give several companies at a time the status of an authorised reclaim fund? If it is the latter, what are the merits of that process?

The clause also gives the Treasury the power to specify which assets a reclaim fund can manage through secondary legislation. We agree that is necessary but believe that any changes must be made following a proper and timely consultation and in line with the overarching principles of the Bill. That is the intention of amendment 5 to clause 29, which we will discuss shortly.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is right; we will discuss some of those features later on in the Bill. The definition of an authorised reclaim fund came into effect under the 2008 Act. Since then, RFL has been the only company to fulfil that function and therefore plays an integral role in the scheme’s success. In recognition of that and given RFL’s new status as a Treasury arm’s-length body, the clause names RFL as the only current authorised reclaim fund for the purpose of the dormant assets scheme. Naming RFL as the only authorised reclaim fund in that way prevents additional competing reclaim funds being set up without Treasury consent and ensuring that the reclaim fund for the scheme is fit for purpose and is essential in maintaining the principle of customer protection.

The clause allows the Treasury to remove RFL as an ARF in the future, in case RFL ever became unable or unwilling to fulfil the function of a reclaim fund. It also enables the Treasury to add the name of a new reclaim fund to the Bill, should another reclaim fund ever need to be set up in the future for circumstances which, again, we may not be aware of at the moment. The clause also gives the Treasury the power to specify which assets a reclaim fund is responsible for managing. As for some of the other features mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, we will discuss them later.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Treasury loans

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

In recognition of Reclaim Fund Ltd’s new status as an NDPB of the Treasury, clause 27 enables the Treasury to provide a loan to RFL or any authorised reclaim fund that may be established in the future, as just discussed, if it ever becomes or is likely to become unable to meet its reclaim liabilities. That would support the reclaim fund until such a time as it is able to cover its cost with its own income. At that point, the Government would look to recoup their costs. That will ensure that customers continue to reclaim their assets in full at any time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Exclusion of repayment claims from financial services compensation scheme

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

In the light of the Reclaim Fund’s establishment as an NDPB, it is no longer appropriate for RFL’s activities to be covered by the financial services compensation scheme. Clause 28 therefore removes repayment claims from that compensation scheme and clause 27 replaces that protection with a Government guarantee in the form of a Treasury loan.

[Peter Grant]

If we take the two clauses together, it is clear why clause 28 is there. My concern is that clause 28 in isolation may be seen to be removing protection from investors. I know the answer to this question, but for the purpose of the record, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that clauses 27 and 28, taken together, do not create any circumstance in which an investor’s money would be any more at risk than it would be if it were left in the original investment. Can the Minister give that assurance?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Treasury loan replaced the protection established through clause 27 of the Bill, which RFL can use if it becomes, or is likely to become, unable to meet its claims. Therefore, that protection is in place between clauses 27 and 28.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Distribution of dormant assets money for meeting English expenditure

[Jeff Smith]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 29, page 22, line 11, at end insert—

“(1A) An order under subsection (1) must be consistent with criteria published by the Secretary of State setting out the principles to be used when making a determination as to whether restrictions, or no specific restrictions, are to be applied to distributed dormant assets money for meeting English expenditure.

(1B) Prior to publishing the criteria under subsection (1A), the Secretary of State must consult on the purposes for which the dormant assets money may be distributed, and the criteria to be applied therein.

(1C) A consultation under subsection (1B) must conclude not more than 3 months after it is announced.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish and apply criteria to be used when determining the purposes for which dormant assets money can be distributed. The criteria must be the subject of a consultation which must last no longer than 3 months.

I will also speak briefly to amendment 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd; to Government amendment 1; and to amendment 3, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North.

Amendment 5 is a probing amendment to test the nature of consultation. The Secretary of State is committed to consultation on the social and environmental focus of the English portion of the funds before making changes to the causes that could be supported by the scheme via secondary legislation. Labour supports the need for consultation: we want to ensure that it is carried out thoroughly and properly, but also promptly. Progress on expanding the dormant assets scheme has been slow over the years. The scheme has worked well, but given that it was set up in 2008, it has taken a long time to come forward and be expanded. We want to make sure that more good causes can benefit more quickly, so we do not want further delays, which is why we support a quick, broad-based consultation when there are proposals to bring new assets forward. We think that the consultation should conclude no longer than three months after it has been announced.

We are also conscious that “social and environmental causes” could mean a number of different things to different people. It could be argued that the lobbying work of a political think-tank could be defined as advancing a social or environmental cause and so, too, could the spending of a Government Department, but I think we would all agree that those would not be appropriate uses of this money. To clarify those issues, amendment 5 requires that the Secretary of State uses the consultation period to define criteria for future uses of the fund, and publishes and keeps to those criteria. We agree that specific causes should be decided upon based on consultation and responding to need, but those decisions can be focused and guided by set principles that will ensure that inappropriate causes are not set up to benefit by the Government of the day, whoever they may be.

Labour is conscious that the four organisations that have so far benefited from the scheme in England, which are Big Society Capital, Access—the Foundation for Social Investment, the Youth Futures Foundation and Fair4All Finance, have all done a really good job. We want those organisations to be able to continue carrying out their important work, so can the Minister assure us that in the event of the Government making future changes to how the money should be spent, those organisations would have nothing to fear, and can he put on record that the broad aims of the scheme remain the same?

I also want to address Government amendment 1. We are disappointed that the Government are proposing to remove the sections relating to community wealth funds. The amendments that were made in the Lords allow the Secretary of State to include community wealth funds—

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I feel a bit of a charlatan: after debates on 28 and a half clauses, we finally come to a vote, but it is on something that, ethically, I should not vote on, because it applies to England only. I will make a couple of comments by way of friendly advice to colleagues from all sides of the House before they consider this amendment and others.

First, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned, a fixed amount of money is available to distribute, so any additional purposes can only be implemented if the existing purposes get less money. Allowing new organisations to bid for money can only mean existing organisations run the risk of less funding. That does not mean that that should not be done, but we need to understand the implications. Secondly, it is important to distinguish between the good purposes for which the funding is used and the interests of the organisations that will either deliver the services or administer the funds. Understandably, someone involved with an organisation will think that organisation is the best in the universe at doing a particular thing, but that will not always be the case; there may sometimes be circumstances where a different organisation could deliver the benefits more effectively.

As I say, I do not intend to vote on clause 29 or any of the amendments. I am quite happy now to sit back and watch my friends from England decide on the best way for England to copy the excellent practice that has been in place in Scotland and Wales for a number of years.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Members for Pontypridd and for Manchester, Withington for tabling amendment 5. I hope to be able to reassure them that the Bill, as introduced, already broadly accomplishes their desired effects, and therefore that the amendment is not necessary. I also appreciate the comments from the hon. Member for Glenrothes, who highlights that Scotland does indeed have greater flexibility at the moment. One purpose of the Bill is to rectify that, so that England can also have some flexibility in how future moneys are disbursed.

I should probably give the warning, or caveat, that while we all expect—in fact, we are very confident—that large amounts of money will be raised through the expansion of the scheme as proposed in the Bill, we of course cannot commit 100% that entities will receive a certain amount of money. We do not currently know how much will be distributed. No individual entity can bank on having a specific amount, although historically the scheme has raised more money than forecast. We cannot plan on that, but I think we are all confident that significant amounts will be raised.

I will give a brief overview of how the scheme works, in the context of amendment 5. The current system works by industry participants voluntarily transferring funds to the dormant assets reclaim fund, the body that administers the scheme, which reserves 40% of these funds in order to meet any future customer claims, with the remaining 60% of surplus then released for social and environmental purposes via the National Lottery Community Fund, the named distributor of dormant assets funding in the UK. It apportions the money among the four nations and then distributes it in line with legislation and any directions given to it by relevant Ministers or Departments.

The devolved Administrations can decide on the focus of their funding so long as it is within the parameters of social or environmental purposes, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned. In England, expenditure is ringfenced for initiatives focused on youth, financial inclusion and social investment through section 18 of the 2008 Act. Currently, funding flows from the National Lottery Community Fund to four independent specialist organisations that work across the three areas. Clause 29 introduces new section 18A to be inserted into the 2008 Act, replacing the current section 18, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned, which will enable the Secretary of State to consult on the purposes of the English portion and to then set the purposes through an order.

Amendment 5 has three core objectives: first, that there should be considered thought behind choosing the future purposes of dormant assets funding in England; secondly, that the public should be consulted before those purposes are set and should be able to have their say on the logic behind the purposes; and thirdly, that the consultation should not push progress into the long grass but must be proportionate and efficient. I understand the intent of the amendment.

Over the last decade, the scheme has been working to level up the communities that need it most,, supporting frontline organisations to tackle deprivation, developing strong social infrastructure and initiatives at local level, and directing funding to some of the most left-behind areas of the country. Those are some of the broad criteria by which the scheme has distributed funds in England. Those principles have operated successfully within the overarching three purposes set for the English portion to date: tackling youth unemployment and financial exclusion and investing in the nation’s charities and social enterprises. Part of the unique strength of the scheme in England is that the funding has been distributed through four specialist organisations. Within the boundaries of appropriate governance systems, those independent organisations have been free to determine the most impactful and appropriate ways to deliver on their missions, including deciding what criteria to apply and when. We are proud of the impact they have had, and echo the numerous supportive comments made by hon. Members on Second Reading.

The scheme has built a compelling evidence base for these types of intervention and we are committed to ensuring that it continues to benefit the people and communities who need it most. We are also committed to affording everyone a fair opportunity to have their say on the purposes for which funds can be distributed. Proposed new section 18A(6)(a) of the 2008 Act provides that the Secretary of State must consult the public about

“the purposes for which, or the kinds of person to which”

the English portion should be distributed before an order can be laid. The first of those consultations will be launched as soon as possible after Royal Assent; we estimate that it could be as early as this summer. The Government will set out our thinking in that consultation document, and we are committed to inviting all those with an interest to have their say.

In the other House, noble Friends of the Member for Manchester, Withington pressed the Government for a commitment to open the first consultation for at least 12 weeks. We agree that is a proportionate amount of time and have already committed to that. I assure hon. Members that we share the ambition to ensure that the money is released as efficiently as possible. We have no intention of delaying the impact we all want the scheme expansion to have. I am grateful for the spirit of collaboration the House has shown in helping us to achieve that ambition. For the reasons I set out we are not able to support the amendment.

[Jeff Smith]

I thank the Minister for his comments and his reassurance that the Government will continue to uphold the principles and “unique strength” of the current ways of working. Given those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 29, page 22, line 12, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

This amendment removes provisions relating to community wealth funds that were added to the clause at Report stage in the Lords.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 3, in clause 29, page 22, line 37, at end insert—

“specifically consult on the merits of establishing a community wealth fund or funds under the dormant assets scheme, and”.

This is a probing amendment intended to ensure the scope of any Government’s proposed consultation process also encompasses full consideration of the merits of establishing a community wealth fund or funds under the dormant assets scheme.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I acknowledge the support expressed by many in the House for using the English portion of dormant assets funding to support, through community wealth funds, the left-behind communities, which experience high levels of deprivation and low levels of social infrastructure. Amendment 1 is not intended to disregard the support for that approach; instead, it is designed to protect the integrity of the consultation process, which offers the most appropriate route to make that a reality.

I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North for tabling amendment 3, seeking a commitment to consult on community wealth funds. I thank hon. Members for taking the time last week to meet me, alongside local trusts, to discuss the proposal. We are content to place on the record our commitment that the first consultation under this clause, which will be launched as soon as possible after Royal Assent, will explicitly include community wealth funds as an option to consider for the English portion.

The scheme has spent the last decade working to tackle systemic social challenges and to level up communities who need it the most, particularly by targeting and benefiting left-behind areas. In England, the impact is delivered through four independent organisations that distribute funding to tackle youth unemployment and financial exclusion, in addition to growing a thriving social investment market. To date, more than £465 million from the scheme has been invested in charities and social enterprises, often in areas or communities that may not have benefited from sustained investment in the past. For example, the growth fund is a £46 million partnership between the National Lottery Community Fund, Big Society Capital and Access. It has significantly expanded the reach of investment to charities and social enterprises that are unlikely to have taken on social investment before. The largest number of investments have been made to target support for vulnerable young people, those not in employment, education or training, and people experiencing poverty, financial exclusion and long-term unemployment. A quarter of all growth fund investments have been in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods.

--- Later in debate ---

I look forward to hearing whether I have been able to persuade the Minister to accept amendment 3. That would give great reassurance to those of us who care about this matter that the Government are serious about committing to community wealth funds.

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I mentioned earlier, this may be an area where we share the intent and end goals but disagree, albeit slightly, on the route by which we get there. I hear what the right hon. Lady is saying and I appreciate the work that she and others have done with the APPG. I have met many members of the APPG, and I appreciate their work, but I hope that the Committee is reassured to hear the commitments that I have made today, including on an explicit option on community wealth funds in the consultation, which will launch as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I know that the right hon. Lady is asking for that to be on the face of the Bill, but I hope she is reassured that the commitment I have made is on record. As I have noted, depending on the passage of the Bill and its commencement, the consultation could be launched as soon as this summer and will be open for 12 weeks.

We have heard the strength of feeling, both here and in the other place, about the community wealth fund and the important proposal to assess it when determining the best use of the English portion under the scheme. We agree that it should be given due consideration, not only by the Government but by the public and the industry participants that underpin the scheme’s success, but we do not believe it is appropriate to include it in the Bill. We have consistently committed to the consultation being fair and open, and we have reiterated the importance of not pre-empting the outcomes.

The scheme has enabled long-term systemic change to be effected in tackling youth unemployment and financial exclusion and growing a thriving social investment market to support our nation’s charities and social enterprises. Those causes have enjoyed public, civil society and industry support for the past decade, and it would not be right to name any new cause in legislation before we consult them on doing so.

Although we cannot accept amendment 3 for those reasons, I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance about our commitment to ensure that community wealth funds will be given full consideration. I therefore hope the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North will be minded not to press the amendment and that hon. Members will support the Government’s amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 29, page 22, line 41, at end insert—

“18B Distribution of money for meeting English expenditure: Requirement to report annually

(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report detailing how dormant assets money has been distributed in England.

(2) The first report under subsection (1) will be laid 12 months after—

(a) any restriction imposed under section 18A(1)(a) of that Act comes into force, or

(b) the provision in section 18A(1)(b) of that Act comes into force,

(3) A report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) how much dormant assets money has been distributed,

(b) the causes to which money has been distributed, and

(c) the Secretary of State’s assessment of the value for money of the expenditure.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report annually on how monies from the Reclaim Fund have been spent in England, including an assessment of the value for money of this spending.

This is another probing amendment, and would require the Secretary of State to report annually on how moneys from the Reclaim Fund have been spent in England, including an assessment of the value for money of the spending. The Labour party believes in the values of transparency and good value for money. Annual reporting on the spend would help to demonstrate whether the funds were being used effectively and for good causes, as intended. It would allow better scrutiny of which causes were being supported and the impact they were having. It could also help to inform future changes that the Secretary of State might want to make through secondary legislation, and would clearly show what is being delivered in practice. We urge the Minister to take this suggestion on board.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington for the amendment and his contributions to the debate so far. As numerous reports are already conducted on the distribution of dormant assets funding, including annual reports from the National Lottery Community Fund and each spend organisation in England, I hope to reassure the Committee that amendment 4 is not necessary.

To date, in England, dormant assets funding has been distributed through the National Lottery Community Fund to four independent specialist organisations. The spend organisations’ operations are regularly reviewed by the Oversight Trust, an independent organisation that ensures accountability and transparency around each of the spend organisations’ activities. The Oversight Trust commissions quadrennial reviews of each organisation to examine their effectiveness in delivering against their respective missions.

As the main distributor of dormant assets funding across the UK, the National Lottery Community Fund already publishes annual statements on the impact of the scheme, alongside annual reports conducted by each of the spend organisations and the quadrennial reviews published by the Oversight Trust as the parent body. There are also annual reports by Reclaim Fund Ltd, the scheme’s administrator. Another review will be published as part of the overall scheme within three years of the Act passing and every five years thereafter. That is on top of the annual reporting I have outlined.

We feel that that is the most appropriate route to avoid placing repetitive, cumbersome and unnecessary further requirements on the organisations entrusted with dormant asset funding. With that explanation of the existing reviews, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the amendment.

[Jeff Smith]

I thank the Minister for his comments and I appreciate the fact that he has outlined the number of reviews that currently take place and the excellent work of the Oversight Trust and the various organisations involved. The Bill does give Parliament flexibility in terms of a way forward. We think that these reports should directly inform Parliament, which is why we proposed annual reports to Parliament. However, having listened to the Minister’s comments and assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Periodic review and report to Parliament

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 30 provides that the Secretary of State must review and report on various aspects of the dormant assets scheme on an ongoing basis. That will ensure momentum for further scheme expansion, greater transparency over the use of funds, and reporting on how the principle of additionality has been met. The results of the review must be laid in a report before Parliament within three years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and every five years thereafter. The report must also include information about the uses of dormant assets money, including the principle of additionality, and will build on reports already published. I commend clause 30 to the Committee.

[Jeff Smith]

We do not oppose the broad principle of reviewing the scheme. We support a wide-ranging review of all aspects of the scheme, which is why we tabled amendment 4 regarding annual reviews. Holding a review more frequently than the proposed three and subsequent five years would be beneficial, and I ask the Government to look at that in future. However, we will obviously not oppose the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 31 makes further provisions about the regulation-making powers in the Bill. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Repeals in the 2008 Act and other minor or consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 32 sets out the provisions in the 2008 Act that are repealed by the Bill. It introduces schedule 1, which makes minor and consequential amendments as a result of the Bill. I therefore commend clause 32 and schedule 1 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 33

Index of defined terms

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clause 33 introduces schedule 2, which presents a table listing various terms defined or explained in the Bill and the sections in which they are set out. I therefore commend clause 33 and schedule 2 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 34

Extent, commencement, construction as one with 2008 Act and citation

[Nigel Huddleston]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 34, page 26, line 3, leave out subsection (8).

Clause 34 sets out various final provisions, such as the geographic extent of the Bill, when the provisions come into effect and how the Bill may be cited. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Authorised reclaim funds: Duty to assess and report

“(1) The Secretary of State must make an annual assessment of the health and governance of authorised reclaim funds. The assessment must be reported to Parliament.

(2) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid 12 months after—

(a) any restriction imposed under section 18A(1)(a) of that Act comes into force, or

(b) the provision mentioned in section 18A(1)(b) of that Act comes into force,

(3) An assessment under subsection (1) must include an evaluation of the risk of insolvency of the fund.”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the health and governance of reclaim funds regularly in relation to the risk of insolvency, and to report on this annually to Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Briefly, we can all recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny over the spending of funds, and it is vital that the Government are held to account on the health and governance of reclaim funds, especially in relation to the potential for insolvency. At the moment, there is no such formal process. New clause 1 is therefore vital to ensure that a regular assessment of authorised reclaim funds is undertaken.

It is our job in this place to scrutinise and ensure that funds are fit for purpose, and I hope that colleagues of all political persuasions can see the benefit of an annual report brought before Parliament. Such a report, with a thorough assessment and prediction of the future of the fund, would be a step forward for transparency, which is crucial to parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in relation to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the health and governance of authorised reclaim funds and to report the assessment to Parliament annually. As we have discussed, RFL publishes its audited annual report and accounts on its website annually, and proactively raises awareness and increases transparency of its work by engaging with industry through stakeholder events and its online presence. Now that RFL is an arm’s length body, Parliament will have greater oversight of its operations and final information. RFL is now directly accountable to Parliament by virtue of its new status. As such, RFL’s chief executive officer has been designated as accounting officer.

RFL has been consolidated into HM Treasury’s accounts, which are laid before Parliament yearly. In July 2021, RFL was included in HM Treasury’s 2020-21 annual report and accounts for the first time. Furthermore, it is standard practice for the annual report and accounts of ALBs, together with any report of the auditor on them, to be laid before Parliament by the sponsor Department. That will happen for the first time this year. Therefore, Parliament will have the opportunity to review RFL’s full statutory accounts, and RFL, like all ALBs, cannot publish its accounts until they have been laid before Parliament. I therefore do not believe that there is any need for a bespoke arrangement for RFL in the Bill. I hope that that explanation demonstrates that Parliament will have greater oversight of RFL’s operations and financial information, so I ask the hon. Member for Pontypridd to withdraw the motion.

[Peter Grant]

It is no great comfort that the accounts will be assimilated into the accounts of HM Treasury because they will get lost in there. We regularly see instances where Government Departments will point to failures in a specific part of their operations that are almost invisible as a percentage of their overall expenditure but can have a significant impact on people’s lives. Any serious problem with this fund will start to have such an impact. That is why, certainly in the early days, it is reasonable for Parliament to want to be a bit more actively involved in its oversight than it would normally be for a long-established fund, particularly given that the fund has been established through an Act of Parliament for a specific purpose. I hear what the Minister says, but for a temporary period of two years, until the House can be reassured that the new arrangements are working well, something a bit more than the usual scrutiny and oversight provisions would be perfectly reasonable.

[The Chair]

Minister, you do not have to respond, but do you wish to do so?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I have nothing more to add.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment on increased parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. I still feel that an annual report being brought to Parliament as a written statement, or to the Treasury Committee or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, would be welcome to ensure oversight and parliamentary scrutiny; however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Authorised Reclaim funds: Apportionment of expenditure

“(1) An authorised reclaim fund may conduct a review of the proportion of dormant asset money that may be spent on particular causes.

(2) Following a review under subsection (1), an authorised reclaim fund may make an assessment and recommendation as to whether this proportion should be increased.

(3) The Secretary of State may, by order, make regulation to change the proportion of dormant asset money that may be spent on particular causes, in line with any recommendation made pursuant to subsection (2).”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This new clause would allow reclaim funds to review the proportion of funds they are able to give towards good causes, and make an assessment and recommendation as to whether this proportion should be increased. It would also give the Secretary of State power to implement such a recommendation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Peter Grant]

This is not made explicitly clear in the wording of the new clause, so would the hon. Member clarify whether the intention is that it would apply only in England or to the devolved Administrations as well? There is acceptance throughout the Bill that anything in the Bill that directs or indicates how money is to be apportioned applies in England and that the devolved Administrations have the autonomy to take their own decisions. The wording of the new clause as it is now would appear to change that and give the Secretary of State the right to give direction that would apply to the devolved Administrations as well. That would clearly be something that I and, I think, a lot of my colleagues would be uncomfortable with.

[Nigel Huddleston]

To allow sufficient time for my official to provide me with a direct response to the hon. Gentleman’s response, I will comment briefly on this area. I understand the intent of the proposal from the hon. Member for Pontypridd. Determining what it is prudent to release to the National Lottery Community Fund and what must be retained to meet reclaims has been intentionally separated from the processes and institutions around distributing funding, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. It is a matter for Reclaim Fund Ltd: it is responsible for determining the appropriate proportion of funding that it can prudently release. As I mentioned, it currently holds 40% of the dormant account assets that it receives and distributes 60% of the surplus funding to the National Lottery Community Fund. The amount that RFL reserves for future repayment claims is rightly based on actuarial modelling and assessment of appropriate risk factors, following guidance from the Financial Conduct Authority.

There is no reason why this should not continue, as RFL is best placed to determine what it is prudent to release, and it is only right that RFL makes its decisions independently of Government and on the advice of those with professional expertise. None the less, RFL continuously assesses and reviews its reserving policy over time to ensure that it is releasing as many funds as possible to good causes. When RFL was established, there was no historical data on which to base its model. As RFL has built its experience of handling dormant accounts, it has reviewed its reserving rate, with a view to releasing more money to good causes, which is what we all want. For example, in 2016, Reclaim Fund Ltd decreased its reclaim provision from 60% to 40%. The fundamental principle that underpins RFL’s current approach to its reserving rate is that it is required to meet reclaims in perpetuity and therefore has to account for any future stress scenarios that may occur and model those accordingly.

The Government agree that as many dormant funds as possible should be channelled onwards to good causes, but this amendment would perhaps set an unhelpful precedent and risk the scheme’s reputation. Industry stakeholders might be less willing to voluntarily participate if they felt that RFL’s reserving policy was unduly influenced, so there would be a risk to the scheme’s continuation should the Government encroach on RFL’s operational independence by having the power to decide what portion of funding it should release.

In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, the amendment as drafted would have an impact on the UK as a whole. RFL releases all surplus funds to the National Lottery Community Fund, and only then is it apportioned. However, it would not change the proportion contributed to each nation, which is, I think, what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. Hopefully that explanation provides him with reassurance. As I said, RFL has reviewed and will continue to review its reserving policy on a regular basis, to ensure that it is fit for purpose. In fact, RFL is currently undertaking a review of its reserving policy, also known as the reclaim—

[Peter Grant]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. It seems to me that he is responding to a different new clause from the one that has been introduced. My reading of the proposed new clause is that it is about decisions as to how the available distribution money is distributed to particular good causes. The Minister is talking about the decision as to how much of the total fund can be made available. That to me would seem to be a professional judgment matter and not a matter for the Secretary of State. Can he perhaps clarify what the actual meaning of this new clause is? I do not think the new clause says anything about how much should be reserved to cover any reclaims. I think it is about deciding how the available money is allocated across individual causes or, potentially, across individual organisations.

[The Chair]

Mr Grant, I do not think the Minister’s response was out of order. He may not be responding to the point that you raised, but I do not think he was not speaking on the new clause. Minister, would you like to clarify the matter?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Yes, Ms Ghani. In terms of the distribution of funding, as I think we discussed earlier, Scotland has flexibility, and flexibility is changing for England. As I understand it, the new clause is proposing some points about transparency and the proportions of expenditure, so the points that I have raised are relevant.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am grateful for the good nature and speed of the debate, which was meant to run for four sittings. There is still a bit of formal business to get through, and the Minister and the Opposition may wish to say some quick words of thanks.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Briefly, Ms Ghani, may I thank you, the Clerks and officials for all your work on the Bill, as well as all colleagues across the House and in the other place for their contributions? I also thank industry and many other stakeholders.

As I said at the beginning of the sitting, there is broad support for the Bill. I understand and have taken on board many of the comments that hon. Members have made today. I hope that I have provided reassurances where they were sought, and that we can continue to work productively and co-operatively on this really important Bill, which will make such a big difference to so many people’s lives. I really appreciate the support that it has received so far.

[The Chair]

If the Opposition do not have any comments to make, we will proceed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the effect on the tourism industry of the covid-19 Plan B advice for people to work from home where possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the vital tourism sector. He is right that some of the new rules, including the guidance to work from home, can be difficult for the tourism sector, because movement of people and social interaction is pivotal to a thriving tourism industry, but we have committed to provide support and over £35 billion has already been provided to tourism, hospitality and leisure businesses.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that response and his recognition that the advice is causing problems for a number of businesses. He is quite right. People who go out to work often use cafés, restaurants, pubs and shops outside their normal working hours. I know the Chancellor has brought in a package of measures to help businesses, and I do not advocate that businesses be closed, but when they are open but suffering from lower trade, how much they are losing is intangible and difficult to assess. Will my hon. Friend speak to the Chancellor again to see whether any further help can be given where it is necessary?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my constituency neighbour again for raising these important points. We have ongoing dialogue with the Chancellor and the Treasury. The new grants the Chancellor announced just before Christmas will be very important in helping the businesses affected. Many will get the grants automatically. I encourage others—perhaps those on the edges of supply chains—that do not get the grants automatically to apply for the additional restrictions grants. The impact on them may not be obvious, and I appeal to local authorities, which have discretion in the allocation of those grants, to be sympathetic to such claims by the businesses affected in the way my hon. Friend describes.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. The theatres, festivals and live events that are such an important part of our tourist offer have all been hit by the uncertainty around plan B, and Government support is not working. The live events reinsurance scheme was meant to protect the music, theatre and live events sector from the impact of covid, but it has been a total flop. It does not cover cancellations due to covid outbreaks, nor does it provide support outside a full national lockdown, which no one wants to happen. Given the demand that will be caused by the continued uncertainty well into the new year, will the Government urgently review the scheme and repurpose it to give businesses and workers the support they need now?

[Nigel Huddleston]

Of course the scheme is really important. We do want to make sure that it works as intended, but it is part of an overall support package for the arts sector, which includes the theatre tax reliefs that were announced prior to Christmas and the all-important culture recovery fund. Again, more money has been released from that. I am confident that the overall package will be of great support to this vital sector.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

4. On what date she last held discussions with the BBC on the enforcement of TV licence fee payments for people aged over 75.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

T4. Last month, I was lucky enough to attend Keighley’s very own rugby league world cup, organised by Joe O’Keeffe and his brilliant team at the Keighley Cougarmania Foundation, which involved 12 local primary schools each representing a different country. The energy and enthusiasm was absolutely fantastic, but we can do much more to support grassroots sport. What more can the Department do to support primary schools and grassroots sports foundations?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents on organising what sounds like an incredibly successful event. He and I know just how important sport and physical activity is for our physical and mental health.

At the recent spending review, the Chancellor announced an additional £205 million for up to 8,000 community football pitches and multi-use sports facilities across the country. Every year, our arm’s length body, Sport England, distributes millions of pounds to support grassroots sport right across the country, including more than £180,000 in my hon. Friend’s constituency since 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

On Monday I visited Harefield United football club in my constituency, which told me, as many other grassroots football clubs do, of its frustration at being unable to access excellent facilities in local schools. What discussions have taken place between the Department and the Department for Education about opening up those brilliant facilities to a wider range of grassroots sports clubs?

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We have to open up school facilities for more sporting activities. I have already had several conversations with DFE Ministers about opening up school facilities. We are also working together on the school sport and activity action plan, and in the spending review additional money was allocated to support the opening up of school facilities and the teaching of PE in primary schools. My hon. Friend is raising a really important point; more action will be taken.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

We know that over Christmas children and young people would have been watching mainly streaming services rather than terrestrial TV, so can I press the Minister? Would it not be an easy and quick win to require all streaming services to use the British Board of Film Classification age verification system? We know that Netflix does, but Disney does not, which causes confusion for parents. This would be an easy, quick win for the Government, as well as everyone else.

Concussion in Sport: Government Response

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Friday 10th December 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I wish to inform the House that the Government have today published their response to the report by the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee into concussion in sport.

Sport is a central part of our national identity and culture. The welfare and safety of everybody taking part in sport is of paramount importance, and the Government are committed to taking action to reduce the risks involved. The actions set out in this report do not represent the final word on the subject and we recognise there is more work to do to continue to make sport as safe as possible for all those who participate in it.

The Government are grateful to the DCMS Select Committee for undertaking its extensive inquiry into concussion in sport. The Committee’s report has reinforced the importance of the topic and provided valuable insights that have helped inform the Government’s thinking.

Our response outlines the Government’s approach to reducing the risks associated with concussion and head injuries in sport. This will involve working with partners from across the sport, health, education, academic and technology sectors.

A full response to each of the Committee’s recommendations is also provided in a separate annex to the report.

Within the report, the Government have committed to:

Commission a set of shared high-level protocols around concussion in sport across the UK.

Write to UK Sport and Sport England to explore ensuring funded bodies make use of these shared protocols.

Work across Departments to improve the protocols and pathways for use in treating concussion in sport injuries in NHS A&E settings.

Direct sports to work with Player Associations on training protocols for players’ long-term welfare.

Convene a sports concussion research forum of experts to identify the priority research questions and improve the coordination with research funding bodies.

Write to National Governing Bodies to emphasise the importance of player welfare (including concussion) when formulating their governance procedures.

A copy of the Government response to the DCMS Select Committee report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS465]