Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 7: 7: Clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert— ““( ) A bank must transfer up to 90% of its contribution to the general scheme providing at least 10% of its contribution is transferred to the alternative scheme under section 2.”” The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 11. As regards that last exchange, another word comes to mind—““member””. Banks refer to customers but building societies refer to their members. Another group of amendments, starting with Amendment No. 10, also refers to this issue. Amendment No. 8 deals with the two schemes for the distribution of money from these dormant accounts. The amendment refers to, "““building societies and smaller banks””." I am persuaded that it would be right to treat all building societies the same. The Bill treats 51 building societies in one way, and eight in another. At Second Reading, I referred to the position of a provincial but progressive building society with some national touches: the Skipton Building Society. Its resources would be deployed nationally in the main scheme and there would not be a local element. I was therefore concerned about the cliff edge, an issue to which I shall return. There is a case for considering building societies as a whole. Eight building societies will be pushed into the main scheme but the bulk of them have local roots. Many of them have their own charitable activities and foundations. The Nationwide—the biggest of them all—has given out £22 million over the past few years. Serious amounts of money are involved and the members have a say; they go to the annual meetings of building societies and take a view on what should happen There is a real case for ““mutuality”” meaning something and for the members having a real say. The Nationwide has its roots as a co-operative building society, with all that that means in terms of mutuality. Amendment No. 8 is about taking building societies out of the national scheme and entering them into the local scheme, or enabling them to operate nationally, with their own foundations which have been tried and tested. That is my first point. Secondly, we should look at the national scheme and consider what is currently the cliff edge. At the moment, even a locally based society, such as the Skipton, would be in the national scheme. Perhaps we can deal with building societies, then consider the smaller banks and, indeed, banks as a whole. Some banks, such as the Halifax, started in the mutual movement. I restate the interests I declared at Second Reading so that they are on the record. The Halifax, which is now part of HBOS, has responsibilities in Halifax, Leeds, Birmingham and Scotland and it would be wrong if, because the bank is so big, those local communities did not benefit in the way that the smaller communities will benefit under the Bill. Similarly, other banks, such as Lloyds TSB, have their own serious and substantial foundations. I suggest that there should be a scheme whereby 10 per cent of the money can be either localised or put into the foundations or charities run by the respective banks. The proposal—this is important for the Government—accepts that the Bill is basically about using the resources to enhance youth services and not about trying to include every favourite charity in the world. It accepts that that is the basis of the Bill but seeks to remove the cliff edge whereby only smaller communities can benefit locally. It seeks to include an opportunity for all communities to benefit, either locally or under the guidance of their own charitable foundations. I beg to move.