Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I apologise to the noble Lord. The Treasury will give a direction. But, of course, that might lead to a challenge from a private institution to what the Treasury was doing, and that could give rise to court action. I was trying to impress on the Committee that we are dealing with a private body. It is subject to the requirements of the Financial Services Authority for the prudent management of its moneys and resources. But if, in an extreme position, the body was acting quite contrary to the basis on which it was established, it would be necessary for the Treasury to act because the body will have been set up by an Act of Parliament to reach some clear public objectives. I cannot cite a parallel body at this point but shall ensure that everyone racks their brains to think of one. I feel some inadequacy in not being able to give the answer, save that the nature of this body is breaking new ground. It is the product of considerable activity by the banks and building societies in a voluntary operation to bring these funds to good public use. We are discussing the last reserve position of the Treasury. It would give a direction, and if the reclaim fund stayed obdurate in its position, that might lead to court action. I merely emphasise that we would have the public authority in conflict with a private body. That is a most unlikely occurrence, but had we not put this in the Bill and established the position of the Treasury in relation to the reclaim fund, noble Lords opposite would have been the first to ask what would be done if things went wrong with the fund’s operation. The fund is a private body, but it fulfils some publicly defined purposes. I will certainly seek to bring to the Committee further illustration, if I can produce a parallel. We are dealing with an interesting concept in the way in which we are bringing in the banks and building societies; after all, it is not public money, nor is it theirs. The banks and building societies retain the money on behalf of owners, and we have defined where this money may be released for other purposes when the owners definitively cannot be traced. We are dealing with fairly unique circumstances. The noble Baroness said that this was a probing amendment. I hope it has probed far enough. Although in other areas where she has put forward probing amendments I foresee further debate and even perhaps some difficulty, in this area I hope she will recognise that we are seeking to put together a structure that makes a coherent pattern of the lightest possible regulatory touch while at the same time inevitably having a final standpoint that the public have an interest in how this body acts. The fund is not a private body that can act without due regard to certain areas of clear public priorities.