Closed consultation

Technical consultation on a Community Wealth Fund in England

Published 21 September 2023

Applies to England

Rt Hon Lucy Frazer KC MP and Rt Hon Michael Gove MP

Ministerial foreword

When cash from bank and building society accounts are left unclaimed for at least 15 years, the government will try to reunite that money with their owners. If that does not prove possible, the Dormant Asset Scheme – set up by the government and led by the financial services industry – uses those assets to fund good causes.

Since 2011, £982 million has been directed to support housing for vulnerable people, helping disadvantaged young people into work and dealing with problem debt. This money makes a huge difference to the lives of people right across the United Kingdom, and we want to expand the Scheme – helping local towns and communities to be more resilient in these challenging times.

Expanding the Dormant Assets Scheme would be a chance to build on its huge success, releasing many hundreds of millions of pounds of invaluable additional support on top of what we already provide. In England, the money will be split between supporting young people and those in financial difficulty, as well as groups that invest in organisations with a clear social purpose. On top of those groups, and following widespread support last year, some of the English portion of money will also go to community wealth funds.

Community wealth funds will help us to achieve one of the primary aims of this government – to level up the country and bring opportunities to areas that have been overlooked and underappreciated for too long. It will hand power and resources to residents – making good on our commitments in the levelling up white paper to empower communities and rebuild vital social infrastructure. Local people have the insight and the experience to identify what most needs improvement and they will be empowered to work together to make that change.

This consultation, and the changes we propose, will help us make sure this Scheme is properly targeted where it is needed most and can achieve the maximum amount of impact in England. We want to get the broadest range of views possible on the principles and structure of a community wealth fund, building on the responses we received to last year’s consultation.

We welcome your input and look forward to hearing your thoughts. Together we will make certain this new initiative delivers for people right across the country.

Rt Hon Lucy Frazer KC MP
Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport

Rt Hon Michael Gove MP
Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

Key terms and acronyms

Key terms

2008 Act	The Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008
2022 Act	The Dormant Assets Act 2022
Cause	The term ‘cause’ is used to refer to the broad purposes for which, or the kinds of person to which, a distribution of dormant assets money for meeting English expenditure may be made
Community wealth fund (CWF)	A fund which gives long-term financial support (whether directly or indirectly) for the provision of local amenities or other social infrastructure
Dormant asset	A dormant asset is an identifiable and attributable item, valued as a monetary amount or able to be valued as such, which a participant is unable to reunite with its owner despite reasonable efforts. Section 1(6) of the 2022 Act summarises the dormant assets that are in scope of the Scheme currently
Reclaim Fund Ltd (RFL)	The Dormant Assets Scheme administrator. RFL receives dormant assets monies from participants, reserves a portion to meet any customer reclaims, and transfers the surplus to The National Lottery Community Fund to be distributed to social and environmental causes
Participant	The term ‘participant’ is used to refer to organisations holding dormant assets that might participate in the Scheme, according to the definitions set out in the 2008 and 2022 Acts
The Scheme	The UK’s Dormant Assets Scheme
Social capital	The extent and nature of peoples’ connections with others and the collective attitudes and behaviours between people that support a well-functioning, close-knit society
Social infrastructure	A framework of institutions and physical spaces that foster personal relationships, civic engagement and social networks, and therefore support shared civic life

Acronyms

CWF	Community wealth fund
RFL	Reclaim Fund Ltd
TNLCF	The National Lottery Community Fund
DCMS	The Department for Culture, Media and Sport

1. Objectives and core characteristics

1.1 Background

The Dormant Assets Scheme is led by the financial services industry and backed by the government. It enables responsible businesses to voluntarily channel funds from dormant assets to good causes, while ensuring owners’ rights are protected. The Scheme responds to the imperative to put funds lying idle to good use, distributing hundreds of millions of pounds to social and environmental initiatives that would otherwise be gathering dust in forgotten accounts.

To date, Reclaim Fund Ltd (RFL), the Scheme’s administrator, has received over £1.7 billion of dormant assets. RFL reserves a portion to meet any reclaims and releases the rest to The National Lottery Community Fund (TNLCF), the Scheme’s distributor. The Scheme has so far unlocked £982 million of dormant assets for social and environmental causes across the UK, with its expansion enabling a potential £880 million more to be released over time.

1.2 Context

The government recently ran a public consultation on the purposes of the English portion of dormant assets funding, which closed in October 2022. In March 2023, the government published its response to this consultation. This announced that community wealth funds (CWFs) would be added as the fourth named cause for dormant assets funding in England, alongside the three existing causes: youth, financial inclusion, and social investment wholesalers. The government is working to make secondary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows to enable dormant assets funding to be used for this new cause.

The proposal to include a CWF as a cause received significant support from respondents to last year’s public consultation, with 71% agreeing or strongly agreeing with its inclusion. There was a clear message that supporting those places that have fallen behind their wealthier and better-off counterparts would benefit the country as a whole. They are ones that have struggled to attract the levels of investment and economic activity seen elsewhere and, as a consequence, their social capital and social infrastructure has been eroded.

Providing investment into some of these places, through a CWF, will empower the people who live there to make decisions on what their local priorities are and how initiatives should be delivered, as they know and understand the diverse needs and characteristics of their area best. Dormant assets are capable of providing the long-term, patient investment that these communities deeply need to tackle the longstanding and complex issues facing them today. By providing funding over the long-term, as well as encouraging additional investment to be leveraged alongside, dormant assets will allow those places to find innovative and bespoke solutions to local issues that deliver positive and lasting change in places experiencing high levels of deprivation and/or low social capital.

While the broad proposal to include a CWF received strong support, there were considerable uncertainties and differences of opinion expressed in the responses to the consultation on how a CWF should be designed, implemented, and delivered. Therefore, the government wants to take the opportunity to ensure that the design of a CWF allows it to be as effective as possible, while ensuring it abides by the essential criteria of the Scheme. The government also wants to target the country’s small towns in order to make the most of the power of community-led change to deliver wider benefits to a place; leadership that can be drowned out in cities and too isolated in smaller communities.

Empowering local people and devolving decision-making power is at the heart of the government’s vision for a CWF. This consultation is therefore intended to embed those principles from the very beginning and ensure people’s voices are heard on what principles will underpin this important new initiative.

1.3 Objectives and core characteristics

The government considers the objectives of a CWF to be:

1. To improve social infrastructure in places with relatively high deprivation and/or low social capital.

2. To empower local people to identify needs and make decisions on what is best for their area.

3. To contribute to reducing inequalities and enhancing community cohesion and integration.

With these objectives, the government wants to ensure that a CWF:

Delivers targeted, local investment to those places experiencing high levels of deprivation and/or low social capital. This will take into account the diverse needs of places, both urban and rural.

Empowers local people by giving them a stake in the process and having resident-led decision-making at its core. A CWF should empower local people to identify the outcomes that are important to them and support them in achieving these ambitions. This could include support for complementary causes such as financial inclusion and education or youth initiatives.

Provides long-term investment to places, giving them a stable source of funding from which they can develop and learn from over time.

Embeds capacity-building, with a focus on building social capacity and developing the skills, experience and knowledge needed to ensure improvements are sustainable over the long-term. Developing sufficient financial literacy skills is likely to be a component of this to ensure a CWF is managed and governed effectively.

Has robust governance and evaluation built-in, ensuring that a CWF has long-term impact with findings that are transparent and learnings are actioned.

Abides by the additionality principle, that is central to the Scheme’s continued success. A CWF must not replace or undercut central or local government money.

1.4 Exploring delivery models

The government will use this technical consultation to help inform decisions on the key design principles that will underpin a CWF. We intend for TNLCF, as the Scheme’s named distributor, to deliver the CWF. We will work closely with TNLCF as they develop more detailed aspects of the design and implementation of this new initiative.

TNLCF has extensive experience delivering place-based projects, strong local networks and partnerships, and a proven ability to deliver large-scale funding programmes. Their delivery will enable a CWF to be operational rapidly, particularly given the possibility of leveraging some National Lottery money alongside dormant assets funding, in order to smooth the uncertain funding flows associated with this unique type of funding. TNLCF will also collaborate with partners, including members across the Community Wealth Fund Alliance (CWFA) and the Local Trust as a founding member, to make best use of available expertise.

We are also mindful of calls through last year’s consultation to consider a more streamlined governance approach. TNLCF’s delivery of a CWF will ensure fewer layers of bureaucracy lie between the money being unlocked from dormant assets and it being in the hands of local people who need it most. Unlike the other three causes in England, funding decisions on a CWF will not be taken by expert organisations on a national scale, but instead by local residents. Distributing a CWF at arm’s length will enable the funding to be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny without placing onerous requirements on places and residents.

2. Scope of the technical consultation

2.1 Technical consultation scope

This consultation will inform the design of a CWF to ensure that it is fit for purpose and capable of delivering dormant assets funding effectively, while making the greatest impact possible in communities across England.

The technical consultation seeks views on the following principles that we consider to be critical to the design of a CWF:

• whether a CWF should focus on supporting a smaller number of communities with larger pots of funding or a greater number of communities with smaller pots of funding
• whether a low level of existing social infrastructure should be required for places to be eligible
• whether funding is allocated from a CWF or whether places competitively bid for funding
• how communities, in the first instance small towns, are selected
• the nature of local decision-making

The government welcomes the submission of additional evidence, alongside consultation responses, that will support the underlying design of a CWF.

Please note this technical consultation applies to England only and therefore the Dormant Assets Scheme in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is out of scope. The government has already committed to publishing a statement of intent setting out the proportions of funding this government intends to allocate to the four causes and therefore the amount of money that a CWF will receive is also out of scope of the consultation.

The government welcomes detailed and thorough engagement with this technical consultation process. All responses that are in scope of the technical consultation will be considered.

A complete list of the questions in this technical consultation is in Annex A.

Questions:

Q1. Are you responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation? (select only one)

• Individual
• Organisation
• Joint response on behalf of multiple organisations

Q2. What is the name of your organisation? (if representing multiple organisations, please list them here)

Q3. Does your organisation manage or hold dormant assets that could be transferred into the Dormant Assets Scheme (according to the 2022 Dormant Assets Act)? (select only one)

• Yes
• No

Q4. In which eligible sector(s) does your organisation operate? (select all that apply, or “UK-wide” if operating across the UK )

• Banks and building societies
• Insurance and pensions
• Investment and wealth management
• Securities (i.e. traded public companies)
• Not applicable

Q5. Where does your organisation operate? (select only one)

Please note that this consultation will help inform government decisions on the Dormant Assets Scheme in England only.

• UK-wide
• England
• Scotland
• Wales
• Northern Ireland

Q6. Which English region does your organisation operate in? (select all that apply, or “All English regions” if operating across England)

• All English regions
• East Midlands
• East of England
• London
• North East
• North West
• South East
• South West
• West Midlands
• Yorkshire and the Humber

Q7. Where do you live? (select only one)

Please note that this consultation will help inform government decisions on the Dormant Assets Scheme in England only.

• England
• Scotland
• Wales
• Northern Ireland

Q8. Which region do you live in? (select only one)

• East Midlands
• East of England
• London
• North East
• North West
• South East
• South West
• West Midlands
• Yorkshire and the Humber

Q9. Are you happy for your response to be quoted on an anonymous basis? (select only one)

• Yes - I am happy for my response to be quoted on an anonymous basis
• No - I do not want my response to be quoted

2.2 Next steps

The government will consider all responses to the consultation and publish its response in due course. We are also preparing to introduce secondary legislation that will include CWFs as the fourth named cause for funding in England. Currently dormant assets funding can only be directed to youth, financial inclusion and education, and social investment wholesalers. The secondary legislation needed for dormant assets funding to flow to a CWF has been laid and will be passed once Parliamentary time allows.

No decisions have yet been made on the amount of funding any of the four causes will receive in England, including CWFs. The government has committed to publishing a statement of intent that will set out the proportions of funding this government intends to allocate to the four causes (youth, financial inclusion, social investment wholesalers, and CWFs).

3. Proposed design principles

The government intends for a CWF to target those places that are experiencing high levels of deprivation and/or low social capital. In the first instance, we intend for a CWF to target communities in small towns of fewer than 20,000 residents.

The government has therefore identified five design principles that we believe will shape the design of a CWF.

3.1 Breadth versus depth of funding

While the expansion of the Scheme could potentially unlock a further £738 million in England, this is dependent on the voluntary participation of financial services industry organisations. This is expected to flow through over a long period of time, and will need to be shared across the four named causes: youth, financial inclusion, social investment wholesalers, and CWFs. As Section 2.2 above outlines, the government has committed to publishing a statement of intent setting out the proportions of funding the government intends to allocate to the four causes in due course. The overall amount of funding that should be dedicated to a CWF is therefore out of scope of this technical consultation.

The government envisions a portion of funding from a CWF being used to develop the capacity and capability of the beneficiary communities, initially in small towns. This is particularly important given that areas with low or no social infrastructure will be targeted. They will then be able to make decisions on how to spend a separate pot of funding in their local area.

The question of whether a CWF should prioritise breadth or depth – for example, whether it is preferable for one community to receive a £10 million pot to spend or ten communities to receive £1 million –​​ is an important facet of its design. The government wants to be driven by the available evidence on which approach can deliver the greatest impact, and has identified 2 clear options to consider:

Option A - A CWF should provide bigger pots of funding to a smaller number of communities. This option would increase the likelihood of a CWF making a sustained, high impact in small towns. This is because it would provide them with more significant levels of funding needed to tackle the often complex and longstanding challenges they currently face. How communities are selected, in particular the initial rollout to small towns, would need to be carefully thought through, however, as the limited number of those benefiting is likely to reduce the England-wide impact.

Option B - Greater number of communities should receive smaller pots of funding through a CWF. This option would allow a CWF to have a greater England-wide impact by targeting more communities. It would also support efforts to build a robust evidence-base for these types of community-led interventions, and is likely to be deliverable much more rapidly than Option A, which requires significant funding upfront. However, doing so would spread the funding more thinly and may make less meaningful change than Option A could.

3.1.1 Government’s preferred approach

While the portion of funding a CWF would receive from the Scheme has not yet been decided, the government is minded to target a greater number of small towns, with smaller, yet still significant (for example, £1 million) pots of funding (Option B). This will allow for a greater impact to be felt across England, and will also allow a CWF to test differing approaches to community-led intervention in places that have a wide range of needs and characteristics. This will further support the development of a robust evidence base for local-level, place-based interventions that can be used beyond a CWF. We welcome feedback on this approach, and what respondents consider the minimum and maximum viable amounts would be.

Questions:

Q10. Should a CWF focus on supporting a smaller number of communities with larger pots of funding or a greater number of communities with smaller pots of funding? (select only one)

• Option A - bigger pots of funding to a smaller number of communities
• Option B - a greater number of communities receive smaller pots of funding
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

Q11. Please explain your answer.

Q12. What do you regard as the optimum amount of funding that a community should be given in total through a CWF (over roughly a 10-year period)? (select only one)

• Less than £500,000
• £500,000 - £1,000,000
• £1,000,000 - £2,500,000
• £2,500,000 - £5,000,000
• £5,000,000 - £10,000,000
• More than £10,000,000
• Don’t know

Q13. What do you regard as the minimum viable amount of funding that a community should be given in total through a CWF (over roughly a 10-year period)? (select only one)

• Less than £500,000
• £500,000 - £1,000,000
• £1,000,000 - £2,500,000
• £2,500,000 - £5,000,000
• £5,000,000 - £10,000,000
• More than £10,000,000
• Don’t know

Q14. What do you regard as the maximum amount of funding that a community should be given in total through a CWF (over roughly a 10-year period)? (select only one)

• Less than £500,000
• £500,000 - £1,000,000
• £1,000,000 - £2,500,000
• £2,500,000 - £5,000,000
• £5,000,000 - £10,000,000
• More than £10,000,000
• Don’t know

Q15. Please explain your answers.

3.2 Existing social infrastructure

The small towns that the government wishes to initially target with a CWF may not have the well-developed social infrastructure which supports the successful delivery of local interventions. To provide greater reassurances that a CWF can deliver measurable and lasting change in communities, the government wishes to consider whether small towns should be required to have a low, baseline level of social infrastructure or community assets present in order to be eligible for funding from a CWF.

Option A - A CWF should have a low baseline requirement for social infrastructure. A baseline level of social infrastructure or the presence of community assets for a place to be eligible for CWF funding may provide greater reassurance that it is more likely to be capable of delivering dormant assets funding effectively. This in turn would increase the likelihood of the funding having a substantial impact, particularly in the short to medium term. This baseline would be set very low – for example, it could be a requirement for a small town to have at least one community-led organisation that has been operational for at least 12 months and has at least one paid member of staff. Although taking this approach may provide greater structure and reassurance of delivery, with the aim of better assuring tangible impact, it could result in some of the small towns with the highest need being ineligible for funding via a CWF.

Option B - There should be no social infrastructure baseline requirement. Although this may require additional capacity building compared to Option A, one of the central objectives of a CWF is to target those small towns experiencing high deprivation and/or low social capital, where this structure and delivery capability is likely to be lacking entirely. Option B would better bring these places into scope of a CWF.

3.2.1 Government’s preferred approach

The government is minded to not set a requirement for a baseline level of social infrastructure and/or community assets present to be eligible for funding from a CWF (Option B). However, we are committed to embedding the lessons learnt from previous community-focused programmes into the design and implementation of a CWF, which will include a significant focus on capacity-building as a central aspect of its delivery. We welcome views on this approach, or an alternative to it.

Questions

Q16. Should there be a baseline social infrastructure requirement for small towns to be eligible for a CWF? (select only one)

• Option A - there should be a social infrastructure baseline requirement
• Option B - there should not be a social infrastructure baseline requirement
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

Q17. Please explain your answer.

Q18. If Option A: What do you think should be the baseline level of social infrastructure and why?

3.3 Allocative or competitive distribution

The government has identified two options for how the funding from a CWF may be distributed. These are:

Option A - A CWF should allocate funding to communities. Ensuring funding reaches those communities that are most in need should be front and centre of the design of a CWF, and we want to ensure that small towns that lack the current capacity or knowledge to bid for funding are not excluded. An allocative approach would therefore aim to mitigate against the risk that these small towns are further excluded as well as avoiding pitting them against one another through a competitive approach. This option would use a flat allocation, whereby all beneficiaries receive the same amount of funding.

Option B - A CWF should distribute funding through a competitive approach. A competitive approach would see communities, or representatives for them, bid to receive dormant assets funding through a CWF. This would allow a CWF to initially prioritise small towns that have a clear vision of the impact dormant assets funding could make. However, this may result in the communities most in need missing out on funding because of a lack of capacity to bid.

3.3.1 Government’s preferred approach

The government is minded to allocate funding from a CWF to eligible communities, beginning with small towns (Option A). This approach is intended to avoid them competing against one another and ensure that dormant assets funding reaches those communities that need it most. This approach will allow a CWF to begin to target interventions in small towns with varied and differing needs and characteristics. We welcome views on this approach, or an alternative that the government should consider.

Questions

Q19. Should small towns be allocated funding from a CWF, or should there be a competitive bidding process to determine which small towns receive funding? (select only one)

• Option A - allocative
• Option B - competitive
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

Q20. Please explain your answer.

3.4 How beneficiaries are selected

If, as set out in Section 3.3, a CWF takes an allocative rather than competitive approach to distributing funding, a methodology is needed for determining which eligible communities, and in the first instance small towns, will benefit and how future places should be selected. The government has identified three options for how beneficiary places may be selected.

Option A - Beneficiaries should be selected in order of priority. This option would see a CWF initially allocated to small towns in order of greatest need – i.e. the highest levels of deprivation and/or lowest social capital. While this option would target the most in need, it may lead to an uneven geographic spread of beneficiaries.

Option B - Beneficiaries should be selected in order of priority, while ensuring a regional spread. This option would guarantee a level of geographical balance. Depending on the amount of funding available to a CWF, geographies deemed to have greater need could have a greater number of beneficiaries. This would allow the impact of a CWF to be more widely felt across England and allow a greater diversity of communities to benefit.

Option C - A discretionary approach should be taken to select beneficiaries. This option would allocate a CWF to those beneficiary communities that are selected on a discretionary basis by TNLCF, in consultation with government. This would allow a wider range of beneficiary communities with differing needs and characteristics to benefit, thereby increasing the evidence base of what works with community interventions.

3.4.1 Government’s preferred approach

The government considers the level of need in communities to be the most important metric to consider when allocating a CWF. However, we also recognise the benefit of ensuring a broader spread of interventions to ensure a CWF cannot be concentrated in one region of England. We are therefore minded to pursue Option B to enable a CWF to target those small towns with the highest level of need, while ensuring that there is a guaranteed degree of geographic and place typology spread across England.

The government expects to work with TNLCF to determine an appropriate mechanism to select priority places, and expects this to take account of the following strategic principles:

1. Eligible small towns are ordered by relevant measures of deprivation, including assessments of the level of social capital and social infrastructure.

2. The index should ensure a degree of geographical spread across England.

3. The index should ensure a degree of typology spread of communities, including those that are urban, rural, and coastal.

We welcome views on this approach, as well as the strategic principles that will be used to select places.

Questions

Q21. How should beneficiaries be selected to receive funding from a CWF? (select only one)

• Option A - beneficiaries should be selected in order of priority
• Option B - beneficiaries should be selected in order of priority, while ensuring a geographical spread across the country
• Option C - a discretionary approach should be taken to select beneficiaries
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

22. Please explain your answer.

3.5 Nature of local decision-making

A key objective for a CWF is to empower local people to identify the outcomes that are important to them and support them in achieving these ambitions. The government is committed to ensuring that building capacity and capability is at the heart of a CWF and will support beneficiary communities, particularly small towns, to develop these skills and capability from the outset. This includes supporting them to engage widely with local residents to identify local needs and agree on the priorities they wish to address with the pot of funding provided from a CWF.

The nature of local autonomy to determine how best to meet these local priorities is central to the design of a CWF. Capacity building and local decision-making must be balanced with meeting the essential criteria of the Scheme itself. This includes ensuring that funding seeks to make a sustained, high impact and measurable change across England, as well as legislative requirements such as the adhering to additionality principle. The government has therefore identified two options, both of which provide local decision-making for small towns as well as meeting the essential criteria of the Scheme:

Option A - Communities are free to determine the best way(s) of meeting local priorities. Communities – in the first instance, small towns – will be supported to engage widely with local residents to identify local needs and agree interventions to address them. As part of this support, they will be offered a broad ‘menu’ of interventions to provide ideas of how they could achieve their aims. These interventions will have been assessed to ensure they adhere to the additionality principle, and are supported by evidence that they are likely to have a sustained and meaningful impact, as well as meeting the broad criteria of the Scheme. Communities could choose ‘on-menu’ interventions, or design their own bespoke interventions. We are considering whether ‘off-menu’ bespoke interventions should be subject to additional scrutiny or support to ensure that they will meet the Scheme’s objective of long-term, sustainable impact. We welcome views of this approach in the consultation.

Option B - Communities must choose from a menu of evidence-based interventions in order to meet local priorities. Once communities have been supported to identify local needs, they must select the interventions from the pre-set ‘menu’ of interventions, for which there is evidence of their impact and effectiveness. This option would address concerns, expressed by respondents to the previous consultation, regarding the impact of interventions.

3.5.1 Government’s preferred approach

The government is committed to putting local decision-making at the heart of its vision for a CWF and ensuring that funding from the Scheme continues to deliver sustained, high impact, and measurable change. The government is therefore minded to allow communities, and in the first instance small towns, the greatest level of autonomy at the outset to address local priorities through the interventions they deem most appropriate – provided that these meet the essential criteria of the wider Scheme, including additionality^{[footnote 1]} (Option A). This decision-making needs to be coupled with appropriate governance and accountability (see Section 4.2) and robust evaluation (see Section 4.3).

The government will engage closely with TNLCF as they develop an appropriate list of evidence-based interventions that will be available to guide places’ thinking on how they wish to address local priorities. This could include interventions that are complementary with other dormant assets causes, such as youth and financial inclusion, and it could also include initiatives targeted at:

• creating safer, greener, healthier places
• reducing anti-social behaviour
• encouraging local connections, engagement and participation
• promoting local culture and heritage

There will be significant support available to communities to ensure they can successfully deliver local priorities and provide the greatest impact and value for money, and local people will be free to shape the delivery of dormant assets funding as they see fit and according to the specific characteristics and needs of their community. We welcome views on this approach, as well as any other alternatives we should consider.

Questions

Q23. What option do you agree with regarding the nature of local decision-making? (select only one)

• Option A - communities are free to determine the best way(s) of meeting local priorities
• Option B - communities must choose from a menu of evidence-based interventions in order to meet local priorities
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

Q24. Please explain your answer, including whether any ‘off-menu’ interventions should be subject to additional scrutiny.

4. Further considerations

The government believes the 4 design principles it has identified will be critical to shaping the design of a CWF and welcomes views accordingly. There are also a number of further considerations that will likely influence the delivery of a CWF.

4.1 Role of the public sector

The government wants to empower local people to make decisions for their own community. The government will, however, actively encourage small towns to work together with the relevant local authorities and other public sector organisations to ensure dormant assets funding is delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible, while providing sustained and lasting impact in those communities. This is particularly important in the context of the additionality principle, which ensures that dormant assets funding (including a CWF) cannot be used to substitute, prop up, or duplicate statutory funding obligations of central or local government; nor replace a service that was previously funded by the government on a like-for-like basis.

To preserve the additionality principle, the government committed to implement a robust set of criteria, such as avoiding funding projects that are the statutory duty of local or central government, for example opening a new primary school.

The government welcomes views on how central and local government can best support the delivery of a CWF, and what are appropriate criteria to preserve the additionality of the funding.

Questions

Q25. What do you regard as the key challenges, and mitigations to those, in how the wider public sector can support the delivery of a CWF? Please explain your answer.

Q26. What do you regard as the appropriate criteria to preserve the additionality principle? Please explain your answer.

4.2 Governance and accountability

The government is committed to ensuring that the design for a CWF will have appropriate levels of governance and reporting at its heart and that local people will be supported to make spending decisions that are right for their area. We are seeking views on how this can best be accomplished, including how spending should be monitored to ensure accountability and value for money, while ensuring that resident-led decision-making remains at the heart of a CWF.

Appropriate governance models need to balance the need to involve a wide range of residents in decision-making, with the need to deliver and account for sustained, meaningful and high impact change that a CWF is seeking to achieve. We welcome views on how best to ensure this.

Question

Q27. How best can we ensure that the governance and reporting of a CWF is appropriate? Please explain your answer.

4.3 Evaluation

Embedding robust monitoring and evaluation processes within a CWF will be critical to ensuring that dormant assets funding is being spent transparently, and generates high-quality evidence on effective locally-led, place-based interventions. Robust evaluation will also help mitigate the concerns expressed by some respondents to the consultation regarding the viability of this initiative.

We want to ensure that the approach to evaluating a CWF treats all communities fairly and equitably, no matter if they are rural, urban or coastal. The evaluation should allow the impact and effectiveness of a CWF to be accurately measured, by taking into account a broad range of indicators and outcomes. These indicators and outcomes should be linked to the area selection methodology to demonstrate a clear rationale running through the CWF programme. We welcome views on how best to ensure this.

Question

Q28. What do you regard as the key challenges, and mitigations to these, in the evaluation of a CWF? Please explain your answer.

4.3 Public Sector Equality Duty

The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) is a duty on public bodies to consider how their policies or decisions affect people who are protected under the Equality Act. Protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. This consultation will seek views on the potential impacts – both positive and negative – that the design of a CWF could have on groups with protected characteristics.

Questions

Q29. What potential impacts do you think the design of a CWF may have on individuals with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010? (select only one)

• Positive
• Negative
• Mix of positive and negative
• No impacts
• Don’t know

Q30. Please explain what you think these impacts would be with specific reference to any or all of the design principles described in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.

Q31. In your view, is there anything that could be done to mitigate any negative impacts? Please explain your answer.

Q32. Do you have any other comments, in scope of this technical consultation, that you wish for us to consider?

5. How to respond

Please respond to the technical consultation by completing the online survey.

Please respond before 23.55 on Thursday 19 October 2023.

This technical consultation covers England only. We welcome comments from all stakeholders who may be interested.

We strongly encourage responses via the online survey. Using the online survey greatly assists our analysis of the responses, enabling more efficient and effective consideration of the issues raised for each question.

Alternatively, you can respond by completing the separate response sheet and emailing it to dormantassets@dcms.gov.uk. This email address will be open for the duration of the technical consultation exercise.

If you are unable to submit your response electronically, you can download the response sheet and post it to:

Dormant Assets Team
DCMS
4th Floor, 100 Parliament Street
London, SW1A 2BQ

When responding, please state whether you are responding as an individual, or on behalf of an organisation, multiple individuals or multiple organisations. We are keen to hear from a wide range of respondents, and encourage likeminded stakeholders to submit joint responses where appropriate. If responding on behalf of multiple individuals or organisations, please make it clear who you are representing and, if applicable, how their views were assembled.

Please do not submit responses that do not use the online survey or response sheet provided.

6. Privacy notice

6.1 Who is collecting my data

The Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) helps to drive growth, enrich lives and promote Britain abroad.

We protect and promote our culture and artistic heritage and help business and communities grow by investing in innovation and highlighting Britain as a fantastic place to visit. We help to give the UK a unique advantage on the global stage, striving for economic success.

This website (“Website”) is run by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (“we” and “us”, “DCMS”). DCMS is the controller for the personal information we process, unless otherwise stated.

6.2 Purpose of this privacy notice

This notice is provided within the context of the notice provided to meet the obligations as set out in Article 13 (this sets out the information we have to provide where the data is received directly from the data subject). Article 13 of UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). This notice sets out how we will use your personal data as part of our legal obligations with regard to Data Protection.

The Department for Culture, Media & Sport’s personal information charter (opens in new tab) explains how we deal with your information. It also explains how you can ask to view, change or remove your information from our records. However we appreciate some Organisation names could be personal data per its definition in the United Kingdom General Data Protection regulation 2018 (UK GDPR).

6.3 What is personal data?

Personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural living person, otherwise known as a ‘data subject’. A data subject is someone who can be recognised, directly or indirectly, by information such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier, or data relating to their physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity. These types of identifying information are known as ‘personal data’. Data protection law applies to the processing of personal data, including its collection, use and storage.

6.4 How will we use your data?

Your data is being collected as an essential part of the technical consultation process for the design of a community wealth fund in England. We will summarise all responses and publish this summary on GOV.UK. This consultation does not seek to collect any personal data from respondents.

We collect the following information, which is anonymised:

• The region or country you are responding from, so we can understand the geographical remit of responses;
• If responding on behalf of an organisation, the name of the organisation you are responding on behalf of; and
• Your responses to the consultation questions on the design of a community wealth fund in England.

DCMS has commissioned a third party, Qualtrics, to host this survey via their online platform. Qualtrics will process your responses in accordance with DCMS instructions and their privacy policy can be found here: https://www.qualtrics.com/privacy-statement/.

6.5 What is the legal basis for processing my data?

The Data Protection Legislation states that, as government departments, the departments may process personal data as necessary for the effective performance of a task carried out in the public interest (i.e. a consultation).

We will not:

• Sell or rent your data to third parties;
• Share your data with third parties for marketing purposes; and
• Use your personal data for analytics.

We will share your data if we are required to do so by law - for example, by court order, or to prevent fraud or other crime.

6.6 What will happen if I do not provide this data?

If your personal data is not provided where applicable, you will be unable to contribute your views to this technical consultation.

6.7 Who will your data be shared with?

We may share data you provide to us with a supplier providing support around the analysis of consultation responses, when we do this we will ensure that we have the right controls in place to protect your data.

We may also share data you provide with the Scheme’s named distributor, The National Lottery Community Fund (TNLCF), as well as the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) who DCMS are working with on this technical consultation. When we do this we will ensure that we have the right controls in place to protect your data.

6.8 How long will my data be held for?

We will only retain your personal data for two years, in line with DCMS retention policy, if it is needed for the purposes set out in this document.

6.9 Will my data be used for automated decision-making or profiling?

We will not normally use your data for any automated decision-making. If we need to do so, we will let you know.

6.10 Will my data be transferred outside the UK and if it is, how will it be protected?

We will not send your data beyond the European Economic Area.

6.11 Links to other websites

Where we provide links to websites of other organisations, this privacy notice does not cover how that organisation processes personal information. We encourage you to read the privacy notices of the other websites you visit.

6.12 What are your data protection rights?

You have rights over your personal data under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the supervisory authority for data protection legislation, and maintains a full explanation of these rights on their website.

DCMS will ensure that we uphold your rights when processing your personal data.

6.13 How do I complain?

The contact details for the data controller’s Data Protection Officer (DPO) are:

Data Protection Officer
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
100 Parliament Street
London
SW1A 2BQ

Email: dpo@dcms.gov.uk

If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your personal data and want to make a complaint, please write to the department’s Data Protection Officer or the Data Protection Manager at the relevant agency. You can contact the department’s Data Protection Officer using the details above.

6.14 How to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office

If you believe that your personal data has been misused or mishandled, you may make a complaint to the Information Commissioner, who is an independent regulator. You may also contact them to seek independent advice about data protection, privacy and data sharing.

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Website: www.ico.org.uk
Telephone: 0303 123 1113
Email: casework@ico.org.uk

Any complaints to the Information Commissioner is without prejudice to your right to seek redress through the courts.

6.15 Changes to our privacy notice

We may make changes to this privacy policy. In that case, the ‘last updated’ date at the bottom of this page will also change. Any changes to this privacy policy will apply to you and your data immediately.

If these changes affect how your personal data is processed, DCMS will take reasonable steps to let you know.

This notice was last updated on 20/07/2023.

Annex A: Consultation questions

Questions for respondents

Q1. Are you responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation? (select only one)

• Individual

• Organisation

• Joint response on behalf of multiple organisations

Q2. What is the name of your organisation? (if representing multiple organisations, please list them here)

Q3. Does your organisation manage or hold dormant assets that could be transferred into the Dormant Assets Scheme (according to the 2022 Dormant Assets Act)? (select only one)

• Yes
• No

Q4. In which eligible sector(s) does your organisation operate? (select all that apply, or “UK-wide” if operating across the UK )

• Banks and building societies
• Insurance and pensions
• Investment and wealth management
• Securities (i.e. traded public companies)
• Not applicable

Q5. Where does your organisation operate? (select only one) Please note that this consultation will help inform government decisions on the Dormant Assets Scheme in England only.

• UK-wide
• England
• Scotland
• Wales
• Northern Ireland

Q6. Which English region does your organisation operate in? (select all that apply, or “All English regions” if operating across England)

• All English regions
• East Midlands
• East of England
• London
• North East
• North West
• South East
• South West
• West Midlands
• Yorkshire and the Humber

Q7. Where do you live? (select only one)

Please note that this consultation will help inform government decisions on the Dormant Assets Scheme in England only.

• England
• Scotland
• Wales
• Northern Ireland

Q8. Which region do you live in? (select only one)

• East Midlands
• East of England
• London
• North East
• North West
• South East
• South West
• West Midlands
• Yorkshire and the Humber

Q9. Are you happy for your response to be quoted on an anonymous basis? (select only one)

• Yes - I am happy for my response to be quoted on an anonymous basis
• No - I do not want my response to be quoted

Breadth versus depth of funding

This section seeks views on whether a CWF should prioritise breadth or depth – for example, whether it is preferable for one community to receive a £10 million pot to spend or ten communities to receive £1 million.

For more information please refer to Section 3.1 of the consultation document.

Q10. Should a CWF focus on supporting a smaller number of communities with larger pots of funding or a greater number of communities with smaller pots of funding? (select only one)

• Option A - bigger pots of funding to a smaller number of communities
• Option B - a greater number of communities receive smaller pots of funding
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

Q11. Please explain your answer.

Q12. What do you regard as the optimum amount of funding that a community should be given in total through a CWF (over roughly a 10-year period)? (select only one)

• Less than £500,000
• £500,000 - £1,000,000
• £1,000,000 - £2,500,000
• £2,500,000 - £5,000,000
• £5,000,000 - £10,000,000
• More than £10,000,000
• Don’t know

Q13. What do you regard as the minimum viable amount of funding that a community should be given in total through a CWF (over roughly a 10-year period)? (select only one)

• Less than £500,000
• £500,000 - £1,000,000
• £1,000,000 - £2,500,000
• £2,000,000 - £5,000,000
• £5,000,000 - £10,000,000
• More than £10,000,000
• Don’t know

Q14. What do you regard as the maximum amount of funding that a community should be given in total through a CWF (over roughly a 10-year period)? (select only one)

• Less than £500,000
• £500,000 - £1,000,000
• £1,000,000 - £2,500,000
• £2,500,000 - £5,000,000
• £5,000,000 - £10,000,000
• More than £10,000,000
• Don’t know

Q15. Please explain your answers.

Existing social infrastructure

This section seeks views on whether small towns should be required to have a low, baseline level of social infrastructure or community assets present in order to be eligible for funding from a CWF.

For more information please refer to Section 3.2 of the consultation document.

Q16. Should there be a baseline social infrastructure requirement for small towns to be eligible for a CWF? (select only one)

• Option A - there should be a social infrastructure baseline requirement
• Option B - there should not be a social infrastructure baseline requirement
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

Q17. Please explain your answer.

Q18. If Option A: What do you think should be the baseline level of social infrastructure and why?

Allocative or competitive distribution

This section seeks views on how the funding from a CWF may be distributed to communities.

For more information please refer to Section 3.3 of the consultation document.

Q19. Should small towns be allocated funding from a CWF, or should there be a competitive bidding process to determine which small towns receive funding? (select only one)

• Option A - allocative
• Option B - competitive
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

Q20. Please explain your answer.

How beneficiaries are selected

This section seeks views on how beneficiaries from a CWF are selected.

For more information please refer to Section 3.4 of the consultation document.

Q21. How should beneficiaries be selected to receive funding from a CWF? (select only one)

• Option A - beneficiaries should be selected in order of priority
• Option B - beneficiaries should be selected in order of priority, while ensuring a geographical spread across the country
• Option C - a discretionary approach should be taken to select beneficiaries
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

22. Please explain your answer.

Nature of local decision-making

This section seeks views on the nature of local decision-making for communities.

For more information please refer to Section 3.5 of the consultation document.

Q23. What option do you agree with regarding the nature of local decision-making? (select only one)

• Option A - communities are free to determine the best way(s) of meeting local priorities
• Option B - communities must choose from a menu of evidence-based interventions in order to meet local priorities
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

Q24. Please explain your answer, including whether any ‘off-menu’ interventions should be subject to additional scrutiny.

Further considerations

This section seeks views on the further considerations that will likely influence the delivery of a CWF.

For more information please refer to Chapter 4 of the consultation document.

Q25. What do you regard as the key challenges, and mitigations to those, in how the wider public sector can support the delivery of a CWF? Please explain your answer.

Q26. What do you regard as the appropriate criteria to preserve the additionality principle? Please explain your answer.

Q27. How best can we ensure that the governance and reporting of a CWF is appropriate? Please explain your answer.

Q28. What do you regard as the key challenges, and mitigations to these, in the evaluation of a CWF? Please explain your answer.

Q29. What potential impacts do you think the design of a CWF may have on individuals with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010? (select only one)

• Positive
• Negative
• Mix of positive and negative
• No impacts
• Don’t know

Public Sector Equality Duty

This section seeks views on the potential positive and/or negative impacts of the design principles that will underpin a CWF.

For more information please refer to Section 4.4 in the consultation document.

Q30. Please explain what you think these impacts would be with specific reference to any or all of the design principles described in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.

Q31. In your view, is there anything that could be done to mitigate any negative impacts? Please explain your answer.

Q32. Do you have any other comments, in scope of this technical consultation, that you wish for us to consider?

1. This includes the legislative requirement to spend dormant assets funding on social or environmental purposes. Examples of what we would consider to be ineligible include political activism, activities of an exclusively religious nature, gifts, and paid for lobbying. The latter includes using grant funds to fund lobbying (via an external firm or in-house) in order to undertake activities intended to influence or attempt to influence parliament, government or political activity; or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action. ↩