Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he moved the amendment. Two different perspectives are clearly at play here: the Government have one and unfortunately he has the other. We have tailored the Bill to meet the needs not only of the large institutions but also those of smaller banks and building societies. He made excellent points about the role which some building societies play in their local communities, and we want to foster and encourage that. However, we are talking about five or six building societies under the definition to which we are working. When we consulted on where the line should be drawn, assets of £7 billion received broad support, reflecting a consensus on the scheme and providing a specific option for the smaller institution. I understand that the noble Lord is saying, ““Well, that’s fine for the smaller institutions. You have safeguarded their role, identified exactly the position for them and it is light touch. But I’d like the big boys, with resources vastly in excess of £7 billion, to enjoy the same role in localities””. That threatens the concept of the scheme. We are seeking a light-touch approach and not heavy regulation. The moment we brought within the framework some concept of a local dimension to very large institutions, we would need much greater specification from both the institutions and the scheme’s reclaim fund. Within that framework, we would have to have the machinery to look at the way in which resources would be utilised. The scheme’s light-touch approach is designed for small financial institutions. It is appropriate that it applies to banks and building societies within that framework. The light touch will not work for the large institutions if they are able to concentrate significant resources in the local way the noble Lord has identified. I understand what the noble Lord said. After all, all building societies were small once. The Halifax, one of the largest of them all, started off small and has, I understand, local connections and loyalties. However, in creating the reclaim fund, we could either have gone for a scheme where everything was distributed on a national basis, with the Big Lottery Fund distributing resources to areas where they are beneficial; or we could have recognised the significant role which small building societies play in their community. We recognised that role and we have made specific arrangements for it. The Bill would have looked very different if we had not made that division. The division is agreed with the industry. The noble Lord is arguing about only eight building societies. We maintain that the dual scheme meets need and enables us to keep regulation to the absolute minimum. On that basis, I defend what is in the Bill while recognising the arguments of the noble Lord about the history of all building societies in their localities. However, eight of them at least are large enough to produce a different dimension from the local institutions for which we are seeking to provide a particular relationship. I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.