Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 12: 12: Clause 2, page 2, line 22, after ““account”” insert ““only”” The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. Under Clause 2, in the alternative scheme the amount available to be transferred to charities by the smaller bank or building society is the amount that is left after paying an agreed proportion to the reclaim fund. That seems reasonable because the reclaim fund will have to meet any repayments. In Clause 2(3) we are told that the agreed proportion must take account of the need for the reclaim fund to have enough money to meet repayment claims. My amendment is a small one: it inserts the word ““only”” into that formulation so that the reclaim fund can take only amounts needed for repayment and not for anything else. This is the first time we have encountered the issue of the finances of the reclaim fund. I hope the Minister will be able to explain how much it is anticipated will be withheld by the reclaim funds before it is decided how much a smaller bank or building society can transfer to its charities, or indeed how much the reclaim fund has to hold back before it distributes money. None of the papers I have seen thus far has given any information about how this holding-back of money will work in practice. Will the banks and building societies under Clause 2 be involved in setting the percentages or will they be told by the reclaim fund how much the fund wants? Will the Treasury be involved in that, or will it be left entirely to the fund and/or the banks and building societies? While we are dealing with Clause 2 schemes, is it anticipated that there will be a flat rate for all transfers, or will it be institution-specific or dormant account-specific? If it is the latter, which is arguably the most accurate, we are talking about significantly detailed calculations being involved. We touched on the Financial Services Authority earlier. It will supervise the payment of customer claims because the Government intend to specify that as a regulated activity. Does that mean that the authority will get involved in the policies adopted by the reclaim fund, either for the amounts taken from those involved in the Clause 2 scheme or from the amounts that it holds back within the fund and does not pay over to the Big Lottery Fund? That raises the question of whether the Financial Services Authority has any competence in this area and how transparent its involvement might be. The amendment arises in the specific context of the alternative scheme in Clause 2, but the principle—that of the money that is set aside to meet repayment claims—has a wide application throughout the rest of the Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to answer questions on that basis as well. I beg to move.