UK Parliament / Open data

Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I was slightly surprised that my Amendment No. 32 was grouped with Amendment No. 4 as Amendment No. 4 deals entirely with what happens to the account before it is transferred into a reclaim fund whereas Amendment No. 32 relates entirely to what happens after it has been transferred to a fund. None the less, it is probably sensible that I should continue and speak to my amendment. At Second Reading, I and at least one noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Newby—raised the question of what interest would accumulate on sums transferred into a reclaim fund. That is an important matter that is not set out clearly in the Bill, and it is fair to say that we did not get a very clear answer; indeed, I am not at all sure that we got an answer at all. I had not at that point read the Explanatory Notes, which are much more precise and specific on the question of interest and charges. However, the Explanatory Notes have no legal validity and do not form part of the Bill. If I have interpreted them correctly, it is the Government’s commendable intention to see that account holders are no worse off—and, conversely, no better off—following a transfer into the reclaim fund, than they would have been if their account had remained open. That is by far the fairest option, albeit the most expensive to administer. I imagine, too, that the banks and building societies and not the taxpayer will pay for the administration. I hope that that can be confirmed. Clause 8 as drafted is somewhat imprecise and ambiguous. I believe that Amendment No. 32 would go a long way to clarifying matters for all concerned.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c21-2GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Back to top