Clause 19
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm
Jeremy Browne (Shadow Chief Secretary To the Treasury, Treasury; Taunton, Liberal Democrat)
This is a sad moment for me, because this is the last amendment that I have tabled to the Bill, although I shall no doubt find some remarks to make on other items before business is concluded. Amendment No. 5 is untypical of my other amendments, because in an amazing spirit of charity, I am seeking to give the Government a little more flexibility by allowing the Secretary of State—the Government have appointed the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families as the responsible Minister, rather than a Treasury Minister, which some members of the Committee might find curious—to amend the three areas in which the dormant accounts money can be distributed by the BLF. Those three areas relate to young people, financial management and financial inclusion. I see merit in having the scope to modify the largesse, if public demand so warrants and Ministers feel that it is appropriate. That is the purpose of amendment No. 5, but the Minister might feel that I am being unduly generous.
Amendment No. 32, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Fareham, makes a reasonable point. Unless I have missed something, throughout the debates on the Bill, the Government have been rather vague about the amount of money to be allocated to each of the three areas identified as priorities. We have been led to believe, not only because the lead Government Minister is the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families but because of the emphasis in the comments made by Treasury Ministers, that the primary area that will benefit relates to young people.
Of course, young people may benefit under financial management and financial inclusion provisions too, but projects specifically aimed at young people appear to be the main thrust of what is being proposed by Ministers. However, I understand that nothing in the legislation specifies that. Of course, that makes quite a big difference; people who are involved in an organisation that is solely concerned with advancing the interests of young people might be enthusiastic about the Bill because they think that 90 per cent. of the money will go to young people and only 5 per cent. to financial management and 5 per cent. to financial inclusion. They will celebrate if the Bill is passed. If the Government then turn round and say, “Actually, we are only envisaging 1 per cent. going to young people, 1 per cent. to financial management and 98 per cent. to financial inclusion,” those people may feel that they were sold something slightly different to what they thought was the case when the legislation went through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament.
Therefore, although I think that my amendment is a charitable one, I am big enough to say that the more important and interesting amendment of the two is amendment No. 32. I do not necessarily follow the argument that the two amendments should be equally weighted, so I would not necessarily support amendment No. 32. Nevertheless, I think that the issues that it raises are—