Dormant Assets Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ghani.

I will be very brief. It can be a temptation in Committee for the Opposition spokespeople to get up and repeat what the Minister has said, and say, “We agree”—so, we agree. [Laughter.]

In the section on insurance assets, there is a lot of potential to use money for good causes. We therefore support all the clauses in this section and indeed in the other sections in part 1, so we will not repeat the fact that we think these clauses are generally appropriate safeguards and appropriate processes to go through to ensure that these assets are used in the right way. We support this clause and future clauses.

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Peter Grant]

It is important to place on the record that I—and, I hope, every Member of Parliament—have a very strong presumption against the concept of Henry VIII powers. It should be an important principle that when Parliament passes primary legislation, only Parliament should be allowed to change it by actively and positively choosing to do so.

In this particular circumstance, the proposed solution is appropriate because it is very tightly constrained. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, pointed out, there are strict limits on the circumstances in which and the process by which the powers can be used. Just as a lot of careful drafting has had to go into the extensions to the scheme that are included in the legislation, it is important to recognise that none of us knows what kinds of financial assets people will hold in 10 or 15 years’ time. People might have significant amounts of money in assets of types that we cannot imagine. For those circumstances, secondary legislation is the more appropriate way to bring those assets in scope.

There are two fundamental requirements in the Bill that have to stay there. First, if Henry VIII are being used, the scheme must always be entirely voluntary, and secondly, the owner must always retain the absolute and indefinite right to come back and reclaim assets that are rightfully theirs. As long as those two requirements are in the Bill, I think that, on this very rare occasion, the use of Henry VIII powers is appropriate and justified.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

Briefly, this clause and the following two are essentially tightening up the arrangements for the management of the scheme, and we are very happy with them. In some cases, they are firming up in legislation what is already happening in practice. We think these provisions have an appropriate level of processes and safeguards and we support them.

[The Chair]

I assume, Mr Smith, that you will not be commenting on the next two clauses as you have made your contribution now?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[The Chair]

Order. We are moving on to amendment 1 later. Do you want to wait for that discussion?

[Jeff Smith]

I thought we were doing amendment 1 as part of this group.

[The Chair]

We are just doing amendment 5 to clause 29.

[Jeff Smith]

I beg your pardon; I thought we were debating them all together. In which case, I will—

[The Chair]

You could just sit.

[Jeff Smith]

I will sit down, yes. [Laughter.]

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

While we are committing to including community wealth funds as an option in the consultation, we have said and will reiterate that we will not predetermine the outcomes. The Government amendment will ensure that the consultation remains an open and fair opportunity for people to have their say in how this important funding stream can have the best impact in England.

[Jeff Smith]

I thank the Minister for his comments. We are disappointed that the Government are proposing to remove the subsections relating to community wealth funds. The amendments made in the Lords that allow the Secretary of State to include community wealth funds as recipients of funding had cross-party support and have generally been welcomed by the sector.

The provisions specify that money from the dormant assets scheme can go toward a community wealth fund to

“support the provision of social infrastructure to further the wellbeing of communities suffering from high levels of deprivation”.

I am surprised that the Government want to remove a measure that empowers communities and surely goes to the heart of the alleged levelling-up agenda. There are Members on both sides of the Committee who represent areas that will benefit from this kind of initiative. The most deprived areas often have the weakest third-sector capacity and infrastructure, which adds to a cycle of disadvantage. Community wealth funds aim to halt that cycle. They are aligned with the aims of the levelling-up agenda and have the potential to transform communities and lives.

Community wealth funds give real power to local people to support local priorities and capacity building. The noble Lord Bassam, who moved the amendment, said that

“the proposal could act as a powerful tool in boosting deprived areas, putting small sums of money in communities’ hands so that they can invest in the facilities or services that would have the most local benefit—perhaps subsidising a community hall, running adult learning classes, supporting skills and training hubs and sports facilities, and improving digital connectivity.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 November 2021; Vol. 816, c. 168.]

We see the amendment as part of the levelling-up agenda and a way of empowering communities, as well as an opportunity to trial new and innovative ways of funding.

I note that the amendment itself was a compromise. It simply allows the Secretary of State to include community wealth funds. In Committee in the Lords, there was a more substantial proposal to include local trusts. Because the Government said there was still work to do on the proposals, the amendment was passed, and it is essentially permissive. The decision on when to move forward is with the Secretary of State, which makes it all the more disappointing that the Government want to block what I think is quite a modest and sensible measure.

I thank the Minister for his comments on the consultation. I am grateful for his commitment that the community wealth fund will be an option to consider in that first consultation; that is good news. However, we believe that this is an important measure, and we would like to see the principle of it written into primary legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said, the principles of this Bill and the 2008 Act are generally too broad to guarantee that the community wealth fund is included; the principle must be framed in primary legislation. I therefore urge Members to reject the Government’s amendment, notwithstanding the welcome comments from the Minister on the consultation.

They always say that the first rule of politics is to learn to count. I appreciate that the Opposition might not defeat the Government on this one, so as a greater compromise, I also urge Members to support the cross-party amendment, which I think the Minister has effectively accepted as the right way forward. I leave it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North to speak to her amendment.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I rise to oppose Government amendment 1 and commend amendment 3.

As we know, Government amendment 1 removes the provisions to create a community wealth fund as a means of tackling deprivation and building social infrastructure in left-behind communities. The Bill was amended in the other place to include those specific provisions. As we know, that amendment enjoyed significant cross-party support, including from Lord Hodgson from the Conservatives, Lord Bassam and Baroness Lister from Labour, Baronesses Kramer and Barker from the Liberal Democrats, Baroness Bennett from the Greens, and the Lord Bishop of Ely.

I oppose Government amendment 1 for two reasons. First, the Bill, as a piece of primary legislation, is an excellent opportunity to set out clearly not only the mechanism for the acquisition of dormant assets, but some of the priorities for their distribution. It is worth noting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington just set out, that the clauses inserted by the other place are permissive, allowing the Minister and the Government if they so wish to enable the creation of funds to be established for community wealth funds.

That helps to set out the current thinking of this Parliament—that we recognise the importance of community wealth funds, and that we would like to see Government investment in that area. If the distribution of dormant assets is not identified with clear markers at this stage in proceedings, after so many years of discussion and debate, that would be a missed opportunity.

I do not believe that the Minister is correct in claiming that secondary legislation is the most appropriate mechanism for deciding on the distribution. We all understand that there is limited opportunity for debate on secondary legislation, and there is, of course, no opportunity to amend it. That means Parliament’s role will be limited to rubber-stamping the Government’s proposals.

With the expanded scheme expected to generate close to £1 billion of new funds for good causes, decisions about those causes are important and should be subject to proper debate and scrutiny in Parliament, rather than just introduced in secondary legislation. I know that Members across the House will want an opportunity to make the case for funding for their own constituencies and for many other good causes—of course they will; of course we all will.

I would argue that the creation of a community wealth fund is a matter of some importance to the Government themselves, with their levelling-up agenda for the most disadvantaged and left-behind areas. We hear so much about that from the Government, and it is really in their interest to have that on the face of the Bill.

There is, of course, a precedent here. It should be noted that the first causes to benefit in England—social investment, financial capability and projects for young people—were all written into the original 2008 Act. I therefore believe that it would be beneficial to keep provisions relating to the community wealth funds in this Bill to make clear what the money will be used for, and that it is the clear will of Parliament. I know the Government do not want dormant assets to be used to supplement their day-to-day spending, but without direction and clarity in the Bill, that could be one unintended side effect. We need a very clear direction of travel, which clause 29 currently provides.

The second reason I oppose the Government’s amendment to remove the provisions for a community wealth fund is that any consultation process on how assets should be distributed could take some time. In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the summer and talked about a 12-week consultation period, so it seems likely that the rest of 2022 will be gone before we get to the point of any secondary legislation being brought to Parliament.

If the Government really are serious about their levelling-up agenda, keeping the provision for community wealth funds in the Bill is an opportunity that helps the Government. The community wealth fund commands broad support. Polling research shows that the proposal would have support among senior leaders in the financial services industry, whose endorsement the Government have said is key. Were the fund to remain written into the Bill, the Community Wealth Fund Alliance could start the process of securing match funding and planning to get money into the most left-behind communities as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

I ask the Minister to reconsider on the basis of those arguments. I genuinely believe that this measure would assist the Government with one of their flagship policies.

I move on to amendment 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods. If amendment 1 is passed, amendment 3 offers an alternative approach, as it would require the Government to

“specifically consult on the merits of establishing a community wealth fund”.

As drafted, the Bill was silent on the purposes that the cash from this next wave of dormant assets would be spent on. As we know, the Government estimate it could be as much as £900 million. As I just set out, that lack of clarity contrasts very clearly with the original legislation, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. The causes that would be supported—social investment, financial inclusion and projects for young people—were very clear in that legislation, so it makes sense to me, given the amount of money at stake and the enormous contribution that the dormant assets scheme will make to good causes, that the matter of where the money is spent should be debated in and ultimately determined by Parliament.

In response to efforts to assist the Government by putting in the Bill powers to establish pilot community wealth funds, the Minister is arguing that the Bill should not cover the specifics and set out the purposes that the funding should be directed to, and that such important detail should be left to the secondary legislation, albeit informed by public consultation. I note what the Minister has committed to do. He said that the community wealth fund would be a part of the first round of consultation, but I would like to push him a little further. Will he meet me and the others who are advocating the establishment of a community wealth fund halfway? Amendment 3 is probing at this stage. I am not going to force the issue to a vote today, but I want to test the Minister further on whether he might be minded to include the community wealth fund as a named and clearly identified object category in that first consultation by putting it in the Bill, if not at this stage, perhaps on Report.

The noble Lord Parkinson, the Under-Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media And Sport in the other place, said

“the Government will consider including community wealth funds in the first consultation launched under Clause 29.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 November 2021; Vol. 816, c. 192.]

The Minister has reiterated that commitment today, but I would like a bit more reassurance from him. I hope we might be able to persuade him to go one small step further and to confirm that it would be written into the Bill, which would be really helpful. That would give those of us in the House who have advocated for this proposal a great deal of comfort, and I think it would be a really popular measure for the Government. It is clearly established as a principle that dormant assets should be used for good causes—in other words, for voluntary and community action, independent of the state—and the voluntary and community sector has already signalled its support for the community wealth fund.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 1 agreed to.

[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.

[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.

[The Chair]

That is very welcome, Mr Smith.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Regulations: general

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I am afraid that I cannot promise the weather—I wish I could! I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in wishing all those participating in the Maccabi 24-hour football challenge the very best of luck. I have no doubt that the time will fly by if they keep top of mind the inspirational example of Harry Kane and Raheem Sterling from Tuesday’s success against Germany. This is a fantastic opportunity for volunteers to raise money for their club to refurbish a local pitch, and I understand that the FA will be matching some of the money raised. I wish him the very best of luck.

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

Nightclubs cannot open today, and they do not know in what capacity and under what rules they will be working when they do. They have no income and are still racking up debts, and today they have to start paying towards furlough payments. Does the Secretary of State think that is fair on them?

[Oliver Dowden]

Nightclubs actually fall within the responsibility of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I am very happy to answer the question. The key thing is to get them to reopen. We are making very good progress towards doing that on 19 July. Many of the existing schemes—certainly the culture recovery fund—will continue to pay out for the coming weeks and months. Indeed, we have said that claims can be made in respect of the culture recovery fund until the end of this year, so a wide range of support remains available for our cultural institutions.

Events Research Programme

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend is clearly passionate about the events sector and has a large number of events planned in his constituency, which is fantastic. Some of them are able to go ahead—that is great; I encourage them to do so, obviously within existing guidance and by talking to local public health. Later in the year—as soon as we possibly can—it is absolutely our ambition to open up far more events at much greater scale, and we will provide guidance that will help enable them to do that.

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

In March, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report said:

“The hospitality and entertainment sectors have not seen sufficient data to underpin decisions relating to their industry…building trust with these sectors is absolutely essential and the level of transparency has not been sufficient.”

The test events seem to have gone well. In Liverpool, apparently only 11 of 13,000 people tested positive and the local director of public health said the event caused “no detectable spread” of the virus. However, we know that only from the press reports, because the data has not been published for that event or any other. The Minister has still not explained properly why that is. Does he think that is an acceptable way to rebuild trust and transparency with these businesses?

[Nigel Huddleston]

As everybody knows, a huge amount of information and data at a local level about infection rates is available weekly online; in fact, it is updated daily. As I said at the beginning, if there were a major outbreak, we would inform the House and others about it. We will publish the information in due course, but it is vital that we do so sensibly. The report is pretty comprehensive, and we must go through due process before releasing it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Thursday 20th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

One of the things that we will be looking at is the cloud video platform. The CPSI report published recently recognised the flexibility and adaptability of the CPS in responding to the pandemic. The cloud video platform was enabling around 20,000 virtual hearings a week, and post pandemic I am sure we will be looking at that among many other things.

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

If the Government are serious about tackling the backlog of court cases, will the Attorney General explain why his colleague in the Ministry of Justice has halved the amount spent annually on recorded sitting days in the past five years, from £19 million to £9.5 million?

European Football Proposal

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Finance (No. 2) Bill: (Freeports (Stamp Duty Land Tax)) (Ways and Means) & Ways and Means resolution
Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I do not think I can add a great deal to my hon. Friend’s remarks. I was somewhat bemused when observing the protest outside the game yesterday, and I can also assure my hon. Friend and all his constituents that the Government will not hesitate in taking robust action to ensure this does not happen.

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

My 50-plus years of watching Man City has brought me a lot of emotions—pain, despair, misery and, more recently, a lot of elation and joy—but always pride, whatever tier we were in, until last night, when the overriding emotion was shame and anger at my club being part of this. In, in effect, ending competition by merit at the top of the pyramid, this ends hope for clubs throughout the pyramid, and it is absolute anathema to the values of a lot of sport in this country. So I welcome the tone of the Secretary of State’s statement, and I want to ask him three things. When he speaks to the clubs, will he try to convey the anger in this Parliament and across the country at this proposal? When he speaks to the Premier League, will he encourage it to take the strongest possible action against these clubs, including my beloved Man City? Finally, a review will take time, but does he recognise that there is a will in this Parliament to take strong action quickly, if necessary?

[Oliver Dowden]

I think the hon. Gentleman spoke very eloquently. Indeed, what he has said is shared by, sadly, so many supporters of those six clubs. I will of course be conveying that anger, and I am sure that that will be reflected in the coverage of this statement. I have already met the Premier League, and I have said that we will support it in taking the strongest possible action. I can also give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that if the actions by the Premier League and UEFA are not sufficient to stop this in its tracks, I have noted the level of support in the House for taking further measures, and it gives me confidence that we will be able to get any measures through should those be necessary.

Covid-19: Cultural and Entertainment Sectors

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is great to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back in her place.

In the brief time that I have, I want to focus on the night-time economy and on what we need to do so to support night-time venues; most have not been able to operate at all for almost a year, and I would argue that they have gone under the Government’s radar. As welcome as the culture recovery fund was, it has had a limited impact, particularly on nightclubs. Nightlife and music venues are the beating heart of our town and city centres, and support so many other businesses in their ecosystems and supply chains. I worked in the music business, and nightclubs in particular, for more than 20 years. I also worked at festivals, and add my voice to the festival industry’s plea for an insurance safety net scheme for large events. If there is one single measure that can help to allow a summer of culture and creativity, it is that one.

I have seen close up the joy and sense of community that nightclubs and music venues bring. I have also seen the massive £66 billion contribution of the night-time industry to our economy. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy, and just before Christmas we launched an inquiry to look at the effects of the pandemic on night-time industries. Remarkably, we received over 20,000 responses from businesses, employees, freelance workers, customers, industry organisations and local authorities. We found that, without urgent Government support, night-life businesses could well be lost.

We are at a critical point. Lots of venues have just about survived, but they are racking up debts on costs like rent and utilities, and just need some help to get them through until they can fully reopen. I fervently hope that tomorrow we will see an extension of business support, including business rates relief and VAT reduction. We need some sector-specific grants until businesses can fully reopen. We also need a solution for the amassed commercial debt, whether that is a shared burden approach to debt, as we have seen in other countries, or a long-term restructuring so that debt does not need to be paid off until businesses are able to do so in the long term. Of course, we also need furlough extension and help for those excluded individuals.

The Government have set out the road map to reopening, which the night-time venues have cautiously welcomed. But it is one thing to be able to open and another to be able to do so at a capacity that makes it viable, so it is really important that the Government consult and engage quickly with the sector on testing, capacity restrictions and whatever other mitigations can allow venues to reopen. The events research programme also has to be carried out in close partnership with the brilliant, creative people in the industry.

It feels like the end is in sight, but this is a really important moment. We have a crucial job just to get our businesses through the next few months until they are able to reopen. We cannot let these vital businesses and venues fold; we cannot jeopardise our wider economic recovery that they are so important to; and we cannot have our towns and city centres becoming ghost towns.

BBC

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

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

The Government have been completely disingenuous about this issue all along. Let us be honest: the BBC was given no choice but to take on responsibility for TV licences. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) is absolutely right: the Government should not be outsourcing their welfare policy or, indeed, their manifesto promises to the BBC. Funding for the BBC’s UK public services is now around 24% less in real terms than if the cost of the licence fee had risen with inflation from 2010, and the BBC is facing £800 million of cuts. Given all that, does the Minister seriously expect that the BBC would be able to keep funding free TV licences for all over-75s? Can he tell us that with a straight face?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that the BBC asked for a number of concessions—the unfreezing of the licence fee, to which he referred, the closing of the iPlayer loophole and other saving reductions —that resulted in its income increasing. The cost of giving free TV licences to those aged over 75, which was introduced only in 2008, was rising inexorably and would soon be approaching £1 billion. I have to ask all Opposition Members whether, if they believe that the free TV licences should continue, they are committing that a future Labour Government, or even a future Liberal Democrat Government, might one day pay to restore them, at a cost, by then, of well over £1 billion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

The Attorney General was asked—

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

1. What discussions she has had with the CPS on its role in reducing the backlog of cases waiting to come before the courts.

[The Attorney General (Suella Braverman)]

I share the concern about the growing backlog in the courts. Covid has presented an unprecedented challenge for our justice system, and the UK is a global leader when it comes to the Crown courts. Jury trials restarted in May. Digital tools have been harnessed in more than 10,000 cases, and all courts will reopen by mid-July. I am proud that prosecutors have continued to fulfil their responsibilities despite the pandemic, both remotely and physically, and the CPS has been actively involved in cross-government discussions to continue progressing work through the courts.

[Jeff Smith]

I join the Attorney General in commending the work of CPS staff and many others, including jurors, to keep our justice system running during the pandemic. Will she assure the House that measures taken to help reduce the backlog will not include judge-only-led trials?

[The Attorney General]

The Lord Chancellor and I discuss a range of criminal justice issues on a regular basis. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Ministry of Justice is leading the court recovery plan, which it published last week. That plan includes a suite of measures, both legislative and non-legislative. The point is that nothing is decided, but I can reassure him that I am deeply committed to the right to jury trial.

Covid-19: Support for UK Industries

Jeff Smith Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions relating to support for UK industries in response to covid-19.

As we have heard already today, the volume of signatures on parliamentary petitions has been huge in recent weeks, reflecting the immense public anxiety about the health emergency we have been living through. I thank every one of the 641,986 people who signed the five petitions that reached the 100,000 threshold and that we are considering today. They are on support for the events industry; for the arts, theatre and music; for zoos, aquariums, and rescue centres; for nursery and childcare providers; and for aviation. I also thank the 74,735 people who have backed seven other petitions that are also relevant. Those petitions are on help for performers and creators; for pubs and hospitality; for early years providers; for wholesalers; for health businesses; and for small businesses.

There is no escaping the devastating impact the covid emergency has had on our economy. That is unavoidable when vast swathes of business activity are shut down. But the Government have listened and have heard the calls to intervene, from the 12 e-petitions and from millions of other people afraid for their livelihoods and their future, including many in Chipping Barnet, and I thank the Government for their intervention. At immense speed, the Government put in place the biggest package of help for jobs, livelihoods and businesses in our nation’s history.

Through the furlough scheme, the Government are paying the wages of more than 9.1 million workers, providing £20.8 billion to more than 1 million employers. More than 2.6 million people have received grants from the self-employed income support scheme, which is one of the more generous in the world. More than 863,000 companies have received bounce-back loans—these have been worth more than £26 billion.

Some £10 billion has been lent to 49,000 firms under CBILS—the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. Small businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector have received cash grants of up to £25,000 and been given a 12 month business rates holiday. A £1.25 billion package is available for start-ups, and £30 billion of VAT payments have been suspended for three months. Some 68,000 businesses have benefited from the deferral of other taxes, and smaller businesses have received help with funding sick pay.

Without that bold and radical intervention by the Government, and the speed at which it has been delivered, our situation today in this country would be far, far worse, as the Office for Budget Responsibility, the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the Bank of England have all confirmed. Unemployment would have rocketed and thousands of businesses would have gone bust, both in the sectors highlighted in the 12 e-petitions and in many others. There has been extensive backing for what the Government have done, including from Len McCluskey, of Unite, who said of the furlough scheme:

“We recognise that these are huge decisions for any government, and especially for a Conservative government, but they have listened to the calls for action and have acted appropriately. Rishi Sunak’s wage support measures are a historic first for this country, but are bold and very much necessary…This will definitely be some relief amid all the fear in households across the UK this evening.”

However, were it not for the difficult decisions taken by Conservative-led Governments since 2010, we would not have been able to respond in this way or on this scale. It is only if you fix the roof while the sun is shining that you have the resources and the balance sheet to intervene aggressively to provide the kind of action called for in these petitions. Sadly, we all know from our inboxes that, even with the scale of what we are doing, there are gaps in support. In an economic disaster as great as this one—possibly the worst for 300 years—there are inevitably still many people facing hardship and uncertainty about their future. I hope that the Minister will consider whether any further help is possible for the sectors highlighted in the 12 e-petitions.

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

The right hon. Lady is making a fine speech. I welcome the support that the Government have put in. Does she agree that people in the concert and festival industry, in particular, are facing a double whammy? Not only will they be among the last industries to get back to anything like normal, but many of them are self-employed and, for various reasons, fall through the gaps in the self-employed scheme. Does she agree that we need sector-specific support for the concert and festival industry?

[Theresa Villiers]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. They are more heavily impacted and I hope it will be possible to have a sector-specific scheme for them.

I was about to turn to exactly that point—the arts, events, theatre, performance, musicians, actors and creators. With no date set for the resumption of events and performances in theatres or music venues, this crucial part of our economy could be the hardest hit of all of them. The future of our regional theatres in particular looks perilous. Adrian Vinken, chief executive of the Theatre Royal, Plymouth, wrote in the Daily Mail today:

“The entire performing arts industry is…facing oblivion. This is not only a human and economic disaster—it is a cultural catastrophe.”

As we heard from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) , the insecure and sporadic nature of jobs in the industry means that many workers fall within the gaps in the Government’s covid intervention package. This includes, typically, freelancers who get part of their income through PAYE and part of their income through self-employment. They may not have been in their PAYE contract at the right time to be furloughed, and they may not earn enough of their income from self-employment to qualify for the self-employment income support scheme. As well as considering further funding support for those workers and sectors, we must have a clear plan to get theatres and venues open and to get events starting again, as has been managed in countries such as South Korea.

It is also really important to reflect on aviation, which, as the petitions highlight, is also hard hit. We need the air bridges in action. Blanket quarantine requirements will make it a hundred times more difficult for aviation to recover, and it is hard to understand the need for quarantine for people coming from places that have fewer covid cases than we do. I appeal to the Minister for a risk-based approach on quarantine so that travel can start up again and we listen to the petitioners who are demanding help and support for aviation.

Our nurseries and childcare are also mentioned in the petition. I welcome the extension of the business rates holiday, directly implementing one of the demands of petitioners, but Ministers need a firm and funded plan to support the sector in the long term. The early years stage of education is crucial in determining life chances, and if we are to deliver on our promises on social mobility and respond to legitimate concerns on equality of opportunity, we need to help nursery and childcare providers through this crisis and ensure that they are on a stable footing for the long term, including restoring funding for maintained nursery schools.