A law has been passed paving the way for millions of pounds worth of unclaimed assets to be spent on youth facilities.

Read: Dormant cash for youth projects becomes law.

Would adults be happy if their facilities were funded using plundered money? I doubt it. This is an attempt to fund youth services on the cheap. It hardly seems to set a good example to children of probity.

actually its a brilliant use of money that would otherwise be sat unused and unclaimed in bank accounts. I think I'm also right in saying its taken several years of lobbying to get to this point - I first heard it mentioned 2 years ago, and the sector should be grateful that it is being made available to it, because I'm quite sure adult services would be very happy if they were able to take advantage of it!

 Hi Mike

 The  thing is it is not just 'money' . It is someone's money.  I haven't read the legislation and I assume that provisions exist so that if people do come forward to claim money from one of these accounts they will in fact still get it. Nonetheless the principal that if someone leaves money  around for long enough the government can just come along and spend it seems fairly questionable to me. (How about that holiday cottage up the road which no one seems to have used for 15 years. Perhaps I'll just move in). We hear about 'respect'. That isn't. It is borderline stealing and immoral. It sets an appalling example to young people.

But, leaving aside my bourgeoise scruples over property rights and the admitedly quaint notion that it is a good idea to teach respect for other peoples' property to  children, the real problem here is that this is short-term. It is a one-off. The government gets the headline that it is doing something for young people but it has avoided the electorally costly question of making a long-term increase in youth service funding paid for out of increased taxation or budget cuts elsewhere. I don't want to get political but it is a classic New Labour headline driven policy initiative. The intended beneficiary is New Labour at the ballot box, not young people.

I'm afraid I don't know about the history of the lobbying  - but why not lobby for a real year on year increase in youth service funding? That would send young people a message that they are valued by society.

 Hi Justin - I think maybe you should read the legislation. My thinking on the holiday cottage is that yes you should use it - we worked with a group in Blackburn some years ago who took over a disused pub and converted it into a community youth drop in facility with the support of the brewery - seems a better use than leaving it to go derelict?

You may be right about motives, I couldn't say as the politics don't interest me. I agree with the caution about this being short term and one-off - but I would separate the opportunities that presents from the different need/desire to obtain increases in ongoing funding. Bluntly if I were running a project that could take advantage of using this one off funding, I would jump at the chance and not let that other baggage get in the way of using funding I otherwise wouldn't have access to.

I'm sure others are lobbying for other kinds of funding to support ongoing services (don't some exist just for that purpose?).

Hi Mike

Not quite sure why you suggest  I should read the legislation? Have I made any mistakes in my reading of it? (I don't think so). And yes  I did check; people whose accounts are plundered in  this way will still get their money back if they come forward.

Your story about the brewery is an interesting one. Sounds like a good project. Of course the difference is you had permission from the brewery. The whole point about this is that peoples' whose accounts are being used in this way have not given permission. Ethically there is a big difference between using something that beongs to someone else with their permission and without it. Or do you think not?

 Justin

You had stated yourself that you hadn't read it, yet voiced quite a strong opinion and that was why I suggested maybe you do. The majority of the money used is likely to be from people who are dead so getting permission could be difficult!

I think you're making a moral issue out of something that doesn't need it - this is something developed over several years and I'm perfectly sure over that time the ethics have been well considered by a great deal of people. If I have any moral opinion on this its that I'd far rather see dormant money being put to good use for society than being left available for rich banks to use as they see fit. In terms of what example it sets to young people I would suggest it illustrates that not everything in life is black and white - in fact it would probably make a very good discussion should you get the opportunity to have it with some.

 Hi Mike

Well I was basing my comments on BBC reporting, which is usually accurate, at least as far as reporting new Acts goes. I hadn't in my first post read the Act and so didn't know for sure if people who do come forward (or their inheritors) would definitely be recompensed. According to another BBC report I read, they will.

You talk about a lot of people but it is a government policy and in all honesty no I wouldn't trust this government or its advisors to have been guided by ethics at any stage.

This really is my objection; it has the feel of a New Labour scam (headline grabbing, devoid of principals or serious intellectual beliefs, opportunistic, short-term, can't argue with it as that would look like I don't want young people to get the money, cynical and so on). I don't think they should be encouraged.

Obviously the better spend it on society rather than let greedy banks use it argument modifies the ethics of it somewhat.

I'm not working in youth work at the moment. Hence perhaps I can enjoy a certain arm-chair ethicising. Obviously it is hard to turn money down. But then I wouldn't really want to accept lottery funding because I think that's a kind of tax and I don't believe in gambling .

Moral of the story; don't employ me as your fund-raiser.

Justin

I ran a lottery funded programme for 6 years and there were from time to time groups that refused to take part once they found out it was lottery funded (usually on religious grounds) - so ethics is important, at least to some people and obviously something to be aware of if you want to recruit certain groups (not something I'd been aware of in the first instance when putting together the fundraising plan!).

I don't think your concerns about spin/scam are unfounded - just that personally I don't have any interest in that kind of politics at all. If people/organisations/govt want to put a spin on things for their own benefit so what?! (although it does annoy me to read of things that are 'announced' several times in various guises) All I'd be interested in is if I could put funding to good use. That is an approach thats caused me problems in the past though - I once had to reject a donation from British Nuclear Fuels for an awards programme for young people because it was against the personal ethics of a Director (even though the charity had no such policy) - but even with that I thought it was a frivolous principle to take - surely better to take their money and put it to good use? I'm quite sure that stance had no bearing on their future actions! The same Director had no such issues with accepting funding from Shell and building & construction companies or flying across the Atlantic to speak for 45 minutes at academic events!