Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I support Amendments Nos. 9, 13 and the question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill, because, while it is correct that a building society is one thing and a bank another, it would be unfortunate if we left the impression that the banks never engaged in any charitable activities or local charitable activities. My own experience would suggest that that is not the case. They are involved in local charitable concerns, and many of them delegate powers to branches to support different activities. It may require a clearance procedure, but, nevertheless, the money comes from the banks’ charitable arms into the charity sector. Removing the word ““smaller”” from Clause 2(4)(b), and therefore making it a voluntary scheme, whereby everybody who joined it could opt for the alternative scheme, would be a very good option. That would be the lightest-touch of all the options in the Bill, because the charities, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, are regulated by the Charity Commission and have to conform to charity law, which is already in existence. If they are lucky enough to receive extra money from dormant accounts, they just put in place exactly the same procedures as they already have, whereas, as has already been said by the Minister, the Big Lottery Fund has to create a whole new, ring-fenced system, which has to keep any assets that come to it separate from its lottery assets and enter a series of complicated agreements. Banks and building societies, if they are in the alternative scheme, will make sure that they do not forget Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The simplest way in which to deal with the matter is to leave the scheme voluntary, keep it as light-touch as possible and, as we move on to the next group of amendments, recognise that the building societies have now, whatever they are thought to have said at the beginning, decided that they would like to be in the alternative, and not the general, scheme.