Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill
Good morning. Before I invite Jim Mather to open this morning's debate, members might want to note that a revised section A of the Business Bulletin has been issued. The specific revision to the business programme is the addition of an amendment in the name of Jeremy Purvis to the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie. Amendment S3M-1200.1.1 was lodged this morning and I selected it for debate. On that basis, amendment S3M-1200.2, in the name of Jeremy Purvis, has been withdrawn.
The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1200, in the name of Jim Mather, on the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation.
I am delighted to speak in favour of the Government's legislative consent motion on the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill. If the motion is agreed to by the Parliament it will allow the UK Parliament to confer additional powers on the Scottish ministers and release funds to support the work of the third sector in Scotland. That is why we have been working closely with the other devolved Administrations and the UK Government on the matter.
I was glad to be invited to appear at the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee to put the Government's support for the bill on record. The committee made good suggestions and raised important points, as it always does. I hope that members were reassured by my responses, some of which I will reiterate. I was pleased that the committee unanimously agreed to recommend that the motion be approved by the Parliament. I was also pleased—in the light of the amendment that Mr Purvis lodged last week, to which I will come—that the committee was satisfied with our intention to consult the sector on priorities for expenditure.
When ministers became aware of the amendment that was lodged last week, we understood the support that it expressed for a valuable part of the sector, but we were concerned that it was not in line with the committee's stated support for our consultative approach. A more fundamental concern was that if the amendment had been agreed to by the Parliament, the resulting motion could have been incompatible with the spirit of the UK bill, clause 19(2) of which provides that
"Before making an order under this section the Scottish Ministers shall consult the Big Lottery Fund and such other persons (if any) as they think appropriate."
Given that important concern, the motion was withdrawn so that we could seek legal and policy advice and engage in further dialogue. We have taken advice and are satisfied that we can proceed without risking access to important additional funding for the sector. That is important. The bill provides us with a rare opportunity for Scotland's third sector, which we cannot afford to pass up.
I will set out the process that the bill will establish at UK level. The bill is in two parts. Part 1 covers reserved issues and outlines the mechanisms to identify, define and collect money in dormant accounts. Part 1 will establish a reclaim fund to collect assets from dormant accounts—those that have seen no activity for 15 years. The fund will be responsible for returning assets to account holders, should they ask for their money. Account holders can do that at any time, with full repayment of interest owed.
Part 2 covers Scottish interests and the devolved elements and proposed powers for the Scottish ministers, which require a legislative consent motion. Part 2 also outlines the processes for the reclaim fund to pass funds to a nominated distributor, which will be the Big Lottery Fund. Our colleagues in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee were keen for further information and reassurance on that, so I will explain why we agree with the approach. The Big Lottery Fund has devolved decision-making arrangements in Scotland, which are exercised through its Scotland committee. It is an experienced, accountable and well-respected distributor. The establishment of a new body would be more costly and would reduce the funds available for distribution.
A key message from the committee was that the Government should consider how areas of particular social need might benefit from the funding. Members also wanted ministers to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of funding across Scotland. I was happy to agree then, and I still agree, with those sensible approaches. I will ensure that such questions are considered as part of our consultation with the third sector to determine Scotland's priorities for expenditure.
I am aware that colleagues in the Parliament and in third sector organisations throughout Scotland have strong opinions on which groups should have access to the money. Such opinions are reflected in the amendments that Mr Purvis lodged last week and today. We acknowledge the change of approach that is reflected in the amendment that he lodged today.
The Scottish Government is well aware of the value of youth work and the need for facilities for young people's activities. I am sure that in her closing speech the Minister for Schools and Skills will be keen to outline in full her support for the youth sector. However, we all know that there is always a need for additional funding right across the sector and right across Scotland and that there is always more to be done. Youth work is one area that could benefit from such funding, but many would say that their area has an equal need.
Over the past week, members will have received—as I have—representations from groups throughout Scotland who are keen to have their voices heard. Many of them were concerned that Mr Purvis's original amendment would lock out large swathes of the sector from the funding. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has expressed "grave concern" over the past week that the amendment on youth services could
"pre-empt proper discussion on how funding...is spent".
Today we are seeing progress. I understand from organisations throughout the sector that we have a real opportunity for cohesion. We had a good session on 7 January at which we had representatives of pretty much all the third sector in the room together. The cohesion is there. The third sector's ability to take on messages, such as those that it will detect from today's debate, is there in spades.
The Government is still enthusiastic to consult widely the entire sector to set its priorities. There might well be widespread support for funding youth work. It is only right that we give all areas the opportunity to be heard. Most of us are in politics for legacy purposes: to ensure that future generations have the best opportunities. I hope that that will be reflected as we proceed.
I am happy to support the Labour amendment, because I believe that it offers members a chance to form a consensus in the Parliament that reflects the cohesion among the third sector, which has been shown this week and in the session that we ran on 7 January. I said to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee that I wanted the third sector to come up with as many good ideas as possible so that we can back those with the best probability of success and the best outcomes. Jackie Baillie's amendment is consistent with that approach as it treats the sector as a cohesive, focused system with unifying environmental and social goals and encourages effective ideas to flow through the consultation process. I believe that the consultation will enjoy an even higher profile and higher participation rate as a result of what has happened over the past week.
I am conscious of the strong interest in the direction of funding among members and the third sector. If Parliament agrees to the motion and the Labour amendment, we will start work immediately to consult the sector and prepare the ground for deployment of these eagerly anticipated funds. I have rushed to get all that information on the record.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the principle of clauses in the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 7 November 2007, providing for the collection and distribution of sums released from dormant bank and building society accounts for social and environmental purposes, and agrees that the provisions in the Bill that relate to the distribution of such sums in Scotland should be considered by the UK Parliament.
I rise to support the principles of the Government motion and to move the amendment in Jackie Baillie's name. No doubt the idea of a dormant bank account is a novel one for most of us, expect perhaps the minister. Throughout my life, my bank accounts have tended to be not so much dormant as near death. However, it has been well known for many years that a great deal of money is lying unused and unclaimed in dormant bank or building society accounts.
The UK legislation to which the LCM relates is a welcome solution, as it will release those resources so that they can be used for the greater good. It is entirely appropriate that the resources released be distributed to the nations of the UK and that in Scotland the Scottish ministers and this Parliament decide on their distribution. After all, the resources must be used for social and environmental purposes, which are devolved responsibilities, so any other arrangement would have been perverse.
I note the assurances that the minister gave the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and which he repeated today, that the income from this source will be separate—or, dare I say it, ring fenced—in the Big Lottery Fund. I also note his assurances to the committee and the Parliament about addressing concerns that committee members expressed about the fund's application and decision-making process.
Our amendment seeks to acknowledge the requirement for consultation about the distribution of funds, but also the widespread view that particular consideration should be given to the provision of youth services throughout Scotland. I doubt that there is a member present—whether they represent a constituency or a region—who cannot cite examples of the fact that youth-work facilities and services often struggle to compete with other causes for funds. Equally, every one of us can certainly describe the turning around of a young life or lives through patient care and selfless support and work, which is often done by volunteers and which usually reaches out beyond the formal structures of the education system.
Every young person who is supported thus to find their way in life becomes a driver of a better future for our country. That is important, because although the bill will create a revenue stream, it will begin with a windfall of the order of £40 million or more. Rather than simply being spent, a windfall should always be invested in something that gives us a future return, and investing in our young people would do exactly that. That is why we believe that there should be a presumption in favour of using the funds in that way and why we have great sympathy with Mr Purvis's amendment and the amendment that was lodged but not moved last week. We are still inclined to the view that the legislation requires a stronger acknowledgement than Mr Purvis's amendment provides, which is why our amendment seeks a balance. However, we will see how this morning's debate progresses.
I repeat that we believe that there should be a presumption in favour of using the funds to support youth work. We seek an assurance on that from the Minister for Schools and Skills, when she closes the debate, to allow us to decide how to vote at the end of the day.
Whether the legislative consent motion is amended or unamended, the bill is good legislation and considering the matter is a good, if short, morning's work.
I move amendment S3M-1200.1, to insert at end:
"and, in so doing, calls on ministers to ensure a full and open consultation involving all interests with a social or environmental purpose and, in particular, organisations providing services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people; notes that a further vote will be required in the Scottish Parliament, and calls on ministers to return to the Parliament at the conclusion of the consultation exercise for further consideration of the distribution of the funds not later than September 2008."
Thank you for selecting my amendment to be debated this morning, Presiding Officer.
In the past seven days, there have been four headline news stories in Scotland about youth crime and the need for action. Yesterday's budget, regrettably, saw the lowest investment in services for young people since devolution. The budget provides additional investment for the third sector overall, but that is not matched by commitments to services for young people.
Since the UK Government published its consultation paper on dormant bank accounts, the Liberal Democrats have believed that the windfall—as Iain Gray said, it is a windfall—presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in services and facilities for young people throughout Scotland and make effective and lasting interventions.
Youth groups and projects in my constituency include UP2U, which is a peer-to-peer education group in Peebles, Gala Youth Project, and the dry bar in Selkirk. Youth groups throughout Scotland need investment in their facilities as well as continuing investment to enable them to sustain the excellent services that they provide. I am talking not about something abstract but about community action by young people for young people in our constituencies.
A rough estimate is that a windfall of some £40 million to Scotland would mean about £800,000 for the Borders, which I represent. We rarely get such a sum of money. Without the bill, there would be no prospect of that money being passed up to Scotland, as Mr Mather might have indicated. We now need to consider how to invest it.
Jeremy Purvis should be commended for underlining the importance of thinking about youth work in determining how the money is ultimately distributed, but is he not taking things a little too far by continuing to push once he has achieved that? Would it not be wrong if a conflict between parts of the voluntary sector was played out on the floor of the chamber in the form of last-minute amendments?
I am not sure whether Mr Harvie is saying that we are playing out anything in the chamber this morning. We are having a debate about the priorities for investment in Scotland.
We have said that we agree with the UK Government that the priority for the windfall is, as the bill states:
"meeting expenditure on or connected with the provision of services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people".
It would be disappointing if, at this stage, the Labour Party moved away from a position of which it has been consistently in favour—not just that there should be a presumption in favour of youth services, but that youth services should be a priority. The fact that something is a priority does not mean that other things are excluded. Perhaps Mr Harvie has been perpetuating that misinterpretation, but I hope not. The legislation is good, but we want it to send out a signal.
I noted that during the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's consideration of the bill Brian Adam raised serious concerns about the distribution mechanism:
"Not all of us share your confidence in the Big Lottery Fund's capacity to redistribute the funds",
he said to the minister. He went on:
"I am concerned about how the distribution mechanism will pan out in practice."—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 12 December 2007; c 389-90.]
So there needs to be consultation and a proper process but, as with the UK Government's approach to the bill, the priority must be to invest in young people. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
I hope that we will achieve consensus on that approach and that that will be reflected at decision time this afternoon.
I move, as an amendment to amendment S3M-1200.1, amendment S3M-1200.1.1, to insert after "young people;":
"believes that ministers should make a clear statement of intent as part of the consultation exercise that funding for children and young people's services is a priority, as was the case in the consultation launched by the UK Government".
The Scottish Conservatives strongly support the principle that banks' unclaimed assets should be put to good use, and we note that the British Bankers Association estimates that they total about £350 million UK-wide, of which approximately £40 million could come to Scotland. We strongly support the principle, and we support the Government's motion.
We welcome the reclaim fund that the bill establishes in case people turn up to reclaim their money. We have one or two concerns about the fact that the scheme is voluntary. There is no guarantee either that all banks will take part or that we will get the full £40 million. That, however, is a matter for my Westminster colleagues.
We have questions about the Big Lottery Fund, some of which were raised in committee by members of different parties. We note with concern the fact that last week money was taken away from the Big Lottery Fund for the Olympics, although that is again an issue for our colleagues in Westminster. Overall, the bill provides an excellent opportunity for social and environmental causes in Scotland and we are happy to support it.
I was pleased to hear in committee and again today that the minister intends to consult as widely as possible and I was happy with his assurance to me in committee that there would be maximum input from all parties across Scotland. Most important, he guaranteed that he would seek views from all over Scotland, not just the cities and the central belt. I hope that that guarantee can be reiterated in the closing speech.
The Conservative party has a difficulty with the Lib Dem amendment, as we did with last week's Lib Dem amendment. It would place a severe restriction, before any consultation, on how moneys could be spent. We also have a difficulty with how the Liberal Democrats went about their business. Mr Purvis says that the amendment is based on a long-held belief of the Liberal Democrats. The LCM went through two committees. The first was the Subordinate Legislation Committee, in which there was no comment on any amendment from the Liberal Democrats. That committee is chaired by a Liberal Democrat. The LCM was then sent to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, where there was a full discussion but no comment on any amendment from the Liberal Democrats. That committee, too, is chaired by a Liberal Democrat.
The member is accurate about the committee proceedings, but he will also be aware of the proceedings at First Minister's question time on 28 June last year and of the fact that Liberal Democrats in Westminster have put on record their position in support of the UK Government's priorities.
Incidentally, the member's party colleagues in Westminster have also agreed that priority can be given to youth services without prejudice to a consultation process. All that we are asking is that there is an approach in Scotland similar to that which his colleagues have accepted for England.
The member misleads the chamber when he states that the money has been given only to youth services. There are at least three possibilities for it and, indeed, the Treasury Select Committee criticised the Government for unduly restricting what the money can be spent on.
Our biggest difficulty is with how the Liberal Democrats went about their business last week. They lodged a last-minute amendment about which civic Scotland was not informed. Any member contributing to the debate last week would have received a lot of representations from youth services and none from elsewhere in civic Scotland. Anyone speaking today can take a much more balanced view, having received representations from civic Scotland as a whole instead of from just youth services. The Liberal Democrats' approach was a last-minute ambush, and again this morning we see a last-minute amendment from them. Youth services should be well funded, but we have great difficulty with how the Liberal Democrats have gone about their business.
The legislative consent motion highlights the SNP Government's desire to co-operate with the Westminster Government at all times. I commend the minister on approaching the matter in such a positive way.
The LCM is all about accessing funds from dormant bank and building society accounts. The funds will be available from late 2009 or early 2010 and I sincerely hope that they will be exempt from the new 2012 Olympic sport, the London cash grab, which is restricted to Londoners and involves them peering into everyone else's pockets and grabbing as much lottery cash as they can.
In line with the aims of the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill, the Scottish Government's intention is to invest the funds for social and environmental purposes. The Big Lottery Fund—"Big", as it is known—will manage the funding.
Exactly who will benefit has been left open, as is required by clause 19(2) of the bill, which states:
"Before making an order under this section the Scottish Ministers shall consult the Big Lottery Fund and such other persons (if any) as they think appropriate."
As Labour members have now accepted that point in their amendment, it appears that—despite their bluster at the time—the Minister for Parliamentary Business, Bruce Crawford, did them a great favour when he withdrew the previous LCM last week.
Even Jeremy Purvis and the Lib Dems have seen the light—well, a bit of it—and amended the amendment that they lodged last week. That is sensible given that, as Gavin Brown said, when the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee considered the LCM on 12 December last year, it unanimously recommended it for approval on the basis that the funds be distributed for social and environmental purposes after an open and transparent consultation process. The committee's convener—well-known Lib Dem, Tavish Scott—made no mention then of any desire to restrict the funding to youth organisations alone, as the Lib Dem amendment sought to do last week. Now, youth organisations are only a priority for the Lib Dems.
So why have the Liberal Democrats had a sudden change of heart? Why have they abandoned their political mischief making? They certainly caused mischief by setting youth groups against the rest of the third sector. That is a recipe for division and dissent that serves no useful purpose—a bit like the Lib Dems themselves.
The Lib Dems' approach was also counter-productive, as many in the youth sector recognised. Let me quote extracts from just two e-mails that I received from constituents who are involved in youth work. First, Jane Cotton of Moray Youthstart wrote:
"As an officer supporting a wide range of front-line workers here in Moray, I would urge you to undertake consultations on the £40 million spend which would clarify where this money could make the most difference."
Secondly, Jennie Macfie of Glen Urquhart youth club, Glen Urquhart public hall, Glen Urquhart Rural Community Association and the arts network stated:
"While I am in favour of such monies being used to fund the third sector, it seems unfair for youth services to be the only ones to benefit."
Youth groups recognised the folly of last week's Lib Dem proposal. I am pleased that both Labour and, to a lesser extent, the Lib Dems have now seen sense.
I call Malcolm Chisholm. I am quite relaxed about timing, but he should keep his speech at around four minutes.
I will not detain Parliament for long as we are all looking forward to the long-awaited debate on health improvement. However, I will speak briefly in favour of the Labour amendment, which I believe achieves the right balance. Our amendment does not exclude the many voluntary sector organisations that might wish to benefit from the funds, but it places a particular emphasis on services for young people. That has struck a chord across Scotland.
The first concrete example of the dormant bank account issue that I came across was at a recent meeting of the cross-party group on Scottish contemporary music that was attended by Feargal Sharkey, who is the chair of the UK live music forum. He flagged up the fact that, in England, money has already been promised from the dormant bank account fund to provide rehearsal spaces and instrument lending for young people in disadvantaged communities. I know that all of us who attended the meeting—including several MSPs—were struck by that proposal. Of course, I would be the last person to say that we should copy England indiscriminately but, equally, I believe that if something good is happening in England, it is perfectly reasonable for us to pay attention to it.
The issue is serious. We know that 43 per cent of young people who want to participate in music are unable to do so because of a lack of facilities and prohibitive costs. Allocating some of the fund to the provision of rehearsal space for young people would be a good use of money.
I will flag up one more issue relating to young people and music. There has been good progress as a result of the youth music initiative. The distinguished and highly regarded chair of the Scottish Arts Council, Richard Holloway, is running a personal appeal for a pilot project in Raploch to bring together a large number of young people who would not normally have the opportunity to learn how to play an instrument to form an orchestra. I am impressed by his enthusiasm and the success of the experiment in Venezuela, and hope that the pilot can be considered as a recipient of some of the money that we are talking about. We all realise that there can be profound benefits for young people if they participate in music. Those who are not convinced by that argument should remember that grass-roots live music is the foundation of the music industry, which is one of the top five United Kingdom exporters.
I hope that, as part of the consultation, the minister will take on board the suggestions that I have made.
We certainly had a torrid procedural dispute about the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill in the chamber last week, but I refute Gavin Brown's rather negative claim that a last-minute amendment has been lodged. That is not the case. As Jeremy Purvis illustrated, we have raised the matter a number of times, and our amendment was lodged in the normal way, in response to a Government motion. There is nothing last minute about it.
I am pleased to say that, on the whole, today's debate has been a bit more positive. I am grateful to both the Government and the Labour Party for helping to move us forward substantially.
The difference between Labour's amendment and the Liberal Democrats' amendment is not a difference of principle; it is a difference of emphasis and direction. I want to get rid of the idea that an attempt is being made to exclude the whole voluntary sector from consultation or participation. That was not the intention of the original amendment and that is not where we want to go.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. The member should let me finish, if he does not mind.
It is important to take a proportional and reasonable approach. Some £40 million is a reasonably substantial sum, but if it is spread around the world, it will dissipate into not very much. It represents a little bit more than £1 million for each council area. We all know that £1 million is a lot of money in personal terms, but it is fairly small beer for organisations. It does, however, allow for concentration within the bill's aims, which is what we are asking for.
A priority of the bill is explained in clause 17, which refers to
"meeting expenditure on or connected with the provision of services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people".
That is with regard to English expenditure, of course. We seek to echo that approach across the board.
Of course, clause 17 is much broader than clause 17(1)(a). Clause 17(1)(b), for example, refers to
"the development of individuals' ability to manage their finances"
and
"access to personal financial services",
and clause 17(1)(c) refers to money being distributed
"to a social investment wholesaler",
which is a person or body that supports third-sector organisations. Does the member accept that the clause is much broader than clause 17(1)(a)?
I accept that entirely, but we are talking about a priority in the bill and things going in a certain direction in England. We are proposing a sensible use of the prioritisation that is available to the Government and the Parliament in the bill.
I have tried to emphasise how modest the amount of money that we are talking about is if it is spread too widely; alternatively, we can focus it.
I commend the Government for its approach to early years learning, for example, and the emphasis on such matters in its rhetoric, but giving priority and opportunities to young people remains the single biggest need in Scotland. In some respects, they are the missing generation—people who go through the school system with all its merits and come out at the other end without the skills necessary to make progress. They are the people who can add to the Scottish economy, which I think appeals to Jim Mather very much.
The debate has been useful and we have moved the argument forward. If the Parliament unites today behind the Labour amendment, which the Government has said that it will accept, that will give a degree of focus. Our argument is that it does not go far enough and that we ought to firm up the wording a bit, leaving the elements about wider consultation of and access for other organisations but putting the focus squarely on the needs of young people and young people's services in Scotland. Jeremy Purvis has done the Parliament and the nation a service by focusing on the matter, and I am grateful to him for lodging the amendments to the Labour amendment and the original motion.
I am delighted to be back this week to speak in support of the amendment in the name of Jackie Baillie. I confess to being a bit bemused at what happened last week, but I am fairly new here. I am also glad to see that Mr Mather has accepted the Labour amendment. It is a first for me to agree with Jim Mather on something in the Parliament. Let us hope that we continue in that way.
I am a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. As Mr Mather said, it fell to us to question him before agreeing that a legislative consent motion should be brought to the Parliament. Several other members of the committee are in the chamber today. As one would expect with questions relating to cash for good causes, there was close scrutiny of what Mr Mather proposed, as he mentioned in his speech. He explained that Scotland could expect a windfall of £40 million as our share of the dormant bank account funds. He also explained that that was not an estimate of how much Scots have left lying in bank accounts, untouched for the past 15 years, but our proportional share of the UK total, which is to be distributed according to a Barnett-style formula.
The bill refers to the funds being divided among England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on a per capita basis. That seems to contradict the advice that was given to the committee by the minister's official, who, when he was questioned on that point, suggested that the bill referred to the division of the spoils according to "population-based formulae". It is fair to say that the members of the committee regarded that as meaning the Barnett formula. Given that there was some confusion on the matter, I wonder whether the minister can clear it up for us this morning.
As has been stated, the committee was also concerned—as was the minister himself, speaking as a constituency MSP—about how the Big Lottery Fund, the nominated distributor of the windfall, would allocate the moneys. I asked questions on the matter and have since been lobbied by the Big Lottery Fund, which has sought to advise me of the good works that it carries out, especially in my constituency. Mr Mather told us that the cash from dormant accounts would go into a separate fund with separate records and that there would be reports to the Parliament, which I hope goes some way towards addressing the points that have been made by Mr Purvis and the Liberals. In fairness to them, Mr Mather was less clear about the areas that would be targeted to benefit from the windfall. He told us that he would consult on the matter, and I welcome his assurances this morning that the meeting on 7 January—I think that is what he said—took place.
Mr Mather also said that a series of other meetings would be held throughout Scotland before the decisions were made about which specific areas or good causes should be selected to benefit from the disbursal of the dormant bank account funds. I am glad to hear that that will happen. Perhaps the minister will tell us when and where those meetings will take place. Again, that might address some of the issues that Mr Purvis and the Liberals have raised.
Indeed, it seems that the question of who should get the money is what caused the Government's problems last week. It grieves me slightly to say that Dave Thompson's speech this morning, in which he complained about Olympic lottery funds, jarred with the tone of the rest of the debate. I remind him gently that 300,000 Scots live in London, who, I am sure, will enjoy the Olympics as much as anyone else.
Labour believes that there is nothing wrong in saying that organisations that provide services for young people should be consulted. I am sure that they will be. Just before Christmas, we had an enjoyable members' business debate on a motion lodged by Robert Brown that celebrated the centenary of the scouting movement. I know from personal experience how difficult it is for uniformed organisations such as the Scout Association, Girlguiding Scotland and the Boys Brigade to raise money for their activities, especially in the more deprived parts of Scotland. I believe that the fund that we are discussing could help in that regard.
I await with interest the result of the minister's consultation exercise. I am sure that he will recall telling the committee that his basic criterion for expenditure was that it should have a social or environmental purpose; indeed, that is what is in the SNP motion. I venture to suggest that young people's organisations such as those to which I referred have a social purpose.
Given that the fund will be held in a separate account with a separate decision-making body, committee members were anxious to know whether the application procedures will be simplified. When the Minister for Schools and Skills sums up, I would be grateful if she could tell us whether that will be the case.
I am sure that all members could think of a number of good causes that could benefit from an injection of cash support. Indeed, as the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism said, members have received a number of briefings from organisations that are anxious not to see the door slammed in their face. The Labour amendment calls on ministers to come back to Parliament once their consultation is complete. I look forward to that and welcome the fact that ministers support our amendment. I hope that the Liberals are reassured enough to support it as well.
I start by dealing with the assurances for which members have asked.
Gavin Brown asked about consultation taking place across the country. That will be the case. Funds will also be distributed across the country.
On Dave Thompson's point, the money is exempt from the London cash grab. An agreed condition of the arrangement with the banking sector is that the funds will be additional to public expenditure, so there will be a separate set of books and separate accounting by the Big Lottery Fund.
On David Whitton's points, the consultations will begin as soon as possible and we will publicise them as widely as possible.
I have been heartened to hear the positive responses to what is a good opportunity for Scotland's third sector. My colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, referred to our support for the youth sector and I reiterate our commitment to supporting that work.
This year, through YouthLink Scotland, the Scottish Government has invested £8 million in a year of action, made up of £5 million for the youth work facilities improvement fund, £2.5 million for the youth opportunities fund and £0.5 million for the voluntary organisation support fund. Those funds have had a big impact on the youth work sector by increasing capacity, improving facilities and funding more activities. The youth work facilities improvement fund has provided a massive, one-off, £5 million investment in equipment and building repairs to youth work facilities across Scotland.
We will continue to support youth work directly through the voluntary organisation support fund. That will help national organisations to provide better training and strengthen their capacity. From 2008-09, we will transfer the £2.5 million annual funding for the youth opportunities fund to local authorities so that they can decide how best to meet local needs.
That is not all. The Scottish Government will also provide approximately £5 million to 34 national voluntary youth organisations through the unified voluntary sector fund for 2007-2010, including funding for youth work provision.
We are also using funds recovered under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to increase opportunities and support a three-year initiative in conjunction with the Scottish Football Association to deliver national networks of three, four and five-a-side football activity, involving up to 9,600 young people per year, and expansion of the soccer one programme to S2 and S3 pupils, which will create up to 1,300 new school-based football teams involving up to 19,500 girls and boys. There will be much more.
I assure Iain Gray that we will ensure that real emphasis and focus are placed on youth work in the consultation process and the distribution of the funds. As Minister for Schools and Skills, I know full well the needs of young people, and I believe, as Iain Gray does, that investment in positive activity for young people as early as possible, as detailed by Malcolm Chisholm, will reduce the number that subsequently require more choices and chances. I give the member that guarantee.
It is simply not right for the Liberal Democrats to say that we do not support and value youth work—we do. However, we also recognise, support and value the sector's work on the environment and on supporting vulnerable people, with older people and in countless other areas. I totally agree with Robert Brown that young people will certainly be helped by any early intervention projects that the Big Lottery Fund can support.
By agreeing to this motion, members will not only allow the UK Government to confer additional powers and responsibilities on the Scottish ministers but give the Parliament a further opportunity to consider how such powers will be exercised and to influence expenditure priorities through the affirmative resolution procedure.
The Government is grateful to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for its unanimous support for the motion. I hope that members will agree that when the time comes to consider the amendments, giving the whole sector the chance to influence our priorities will prove the best and fairest approach.
Today's motion represents a good opportunity. I urge members to support it and the Labour amendment, which signals a change of approach.