The Government's clear policy intention has always been that youth spending in England should be the priority, but there are other considerations, particularly with regard to the build up of the fund, as I mentioned earlier. If the Government were minded to support and take forward the social investment wholesaler, it might need up-front capitalisation, but over time we have been very clear that youth funding is very much the priority.
I appreciate that amendments Nos. 1 to 3 are probing ones, but one principle of the scheme is that it is rightly and properly the responsibility of the devolved Administrations to determine their own spending areas within their respective countries, so that they identify priorities that best reflect the needs of their communities. That was spelt out in the Treasury's May 2007 consultation, which also recognised that the priorities in those countries may change over time. Although the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey invites us to be prescriptive, I must reject his invitation and say that, in the spirit of devolution, we believe it right to ensure that the devolved Administrations be free to determine their own spending areas. On the spending formula, as we have said in Committee and on previous occasions, the Barnett formula is the most appropriate way of allocating funds. We discussed the matter with the devolved Administrations, and they agree with the approach, so I invite hon. Members to reject amendments Nos. 1 to 3.
Amendment No. 13 would require the BLF to set out in its strategic plan for England how it has regard to the likely levels of funds that it will receive from the reclaim fund. I mentioned earlier to the hon. Member for Fareham, when discussing the way in which the reclaim fund would be capitalised through dormant accounts, that it gives us an opportunity to consider the social investment wholesaler, so I assure him that it will not be forgotten. It was one of his key points.
Amendment No. 14 would require the BLF, when consulting to identify spending needs while drawing up the strategic plan, to take into account the priorities for the three spending areas for England. Again, that would be unnecessary, because the identification of the overall needs for England is, in essence, the delivery of the requirements of the spending direction, and they set out the priority to be accorded to each spending area. That brings me on to talk about drawing up the strategic plan on the Secretary of State's instruction, and why it has been included in the Bill. We are concerned to ensure that we enable the BLF to take a strategic approach to distribute funding in England within the parameters of the spending directions. It is right that, within the general framework for directions, on which we will insist, the BLF has responsibility for drawing up its strategic plan, and that, as part of the plan, it gives advance notice to voluntary organisations of its funding priorities in the directions.
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Ian Pearson
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 3 November 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
482 c80-1 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:24:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505454
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505454
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505454