Football Governance

Debate between Jeff Smith and Nigel Huddleston

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. I also thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and all those who contributed to her excellent and timely review of our national game.

I welcome the confirmation that the Government are supporting the strategic recommendations of the fan-led review. Labour has been calling for the plans to be fully implemented ever since the review was published and, in particular, for the independent regulator for English football, which is key to reform. But however the Government try to spin it, today’s announcement of a White Paper and further delay will come as a disappointment to fans.

The fan-led review was a rigorous and wide-ranging piece of work, based on engagement with every possible interest group alongside more than 20,000 individual fan responses to a survey, and supported by an expert advisory panel from the world of football. As the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), rightly said when doing the media rounds this morning,

“there has been huge input from fans up and down the country”.

Eleven years after the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report, three years after the collapse of Bury, a year after the disastrous European super league proposal and five months after the publication of the fan-led review, we do not need further consultation or a road map. We need a clear timetable and new legislation to be included in the Queen’s Speech in 15 days’ time.

The need for urgent action is clear. Oldham Athletic were relegated from the English football league on Saturday after years of mismanagement ending in fan protests. Derby County are in ongoing crisis and were relegated from the championship this week—not because the players are not good enough, but because of bad owner management and governance. Those two historic clubs, founding members of the premier and football leagues respectively, have been hit hard because of reckless owners.

In the wake of the Ukraine war and sanctions, Chelsea are in limbo. Many supporters want the review recommendations to be incorporated in the club’s sale. The Government are missing an opportunity to embed fan representation, as recommended in the review, and give supporters a say on changes to the heritage assets of their club.

The Minister’s statement, although welcome, left some questions unanswered. The Minister could not rule out to the Select Committee recently that a regulator might be located within the FA. Can he do so now? We believe that it is vital for the regulator to be truly independent.

The statement confirmed that the Government are accepting all 10 of the strategic recommendations. That is good, but can the Minister confirm that the Government support the 47 detailed recommendations in the report? Perhaps more importantly, are there any that they do not support?

The announcement today will do nothing to break the impasse on the redistribution of funding. The fan-led review gave the Premier League and the EFL until the end of 2021 to work it out between them, but that has not happened: the bodies have not been able to come to an agreement for months. If they fail, the review proposes action from the regulator, but on the current timescale—unless the Minister can tell me otherwise—a regulator will not be in place until at least 2024. At what point will he intervene urgently to get the Premier League and the EFL to an agreement?

The dedicated review of women’s football, which was an important recommendation in the review, is really welcome. Can the Minister give any more detail on who will chair it, what timescale it might follow and how its recommendations will be taken forward in due course?

The Government have said all along, quite rightly, that they accept in principle the proposals in the review, so let us get on with it. We are already too late for Bury, Derby and Oldham. If further clubs go under or suffer because of delays to the implementation of the review, responsibility will rest partly on the Government’s shoulders. The Labour party is happy to work with the Government to find space for legislation sooner rather than later. The right result is already clear; we do not need extra time. For the future of our national game, let us see legislation in the Queen’s Speech and action as quickly as possible.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. May I put on record my thanks and gratitude for the genuinely positive and constructive tone that we have had from him, from the Opposition DCMS team and from Members across the House?

There is a clear cross-party intent to move forward. I can say definitely to the hon. Gentleman that there is no intent to delay: we want to move forward as soon as possible. A White Paper is not an unusual step to take in bringing legislation to the House. It will also give others the opportunity to make additional comments as we move to the final stages of what is one of the most fundamental transformations in English football.

It is important that we get this right. It is incredibly complex: we will be bringing in incredible rigour and discipline, particularly financial discipline, for clubs, which has not happened before. If we were expected to bring in regulation tomorrow, it could cause considerable difficulty for clubs that may not currently be in a position to prove the level of discipline and rigour in their finances that we would seek in a new world with more financial regulation. We have to do it at the right time and give adequate notice. That being said, we want to move at speed, and the team at DDCMS are all working on many of the aspects that the hon. Gentleman raises.

On many of the hon. Gentleman’s points, further details will be coming in the White Paper. In the next few weeks, we will also announce further details on the review of the women’s game; the game has some similar issues but many different issues, so it is right that there is a separate review. We will continue to put pressure on the Premier League and others to move forward in the many areas that the hon. Gentleman identified that do not require regulation. For example, we expect many entities to move forward in the areas of financial distribution, fan engagement and heritage assets. Football entities can continue to move those matters forward, and I am sure that the whole House will continue to bring pressure on them to do so. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his genuinely constructive comments and welcome the overall support that we are hearing from the Opposition.

Charities Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Jeff Smith and Nigel Huddleston

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Dormant Assets Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Jeff Smith and Nigel Huddleston

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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]

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.

--- 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.

--- 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—

--- 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.

--- 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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jeff Smith and Nigel Huddleston

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

Debate between Jeff Smith and Nigel Huddleston

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?

Events Research Programme

Debate between Jeff Smith and Nigel Huddleston

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.