Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I have two issues with the amendment. The first relates to our previous discussion. Is this a public-sector or a private-sector body? I think the noble Baroness used the phrase ““public functions in the public sector””, which is why she wanted this public-sector wording. But if this is a private-sector company, it seems strange to put in wording that relates to public bodies. I would have thought that if, as the Government claim, this is a private-sector body, the logical place to start would be the Banking Code, which carefully states: "““We will treat all your personal information as private and confidential””." There are a number of exceptions, one of which is: "““If we have to give the information by law””." This brings me on to my second point, which takes up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I hope that it will be possible through the reclaim fund to identify people who have dormant accounts—we would need a provision in the Bill to that effect—but that would be covered under this provision of the Banking Code if the reclaim fund adopted the code. This is just another example of a lack of clarity in our minds. It is difficult to know whether this is a public body or a private body. If it is a public body in every respect, let us treat it like one; if it is not, let us not do so. The slight problem with the amendment is that it treats the reclaim fund as a public body although we have been told by the Government that it is not.