Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

My Lords, I repeat what I said in answer to Amendment No. 27. I know that I am at risk of repeating myself but these series of single amendments deal with the same kind of points and I find it slightly surprising that they should have been de-grouped in the way that they have been. Be that as it may, I repeat that the scheme will be highly transparent, which is important. The reclaim fund will be required to publish information about which institutions are participating in the scheme, the amount of money transferred into the scheme and the amount of money reunited with account holders at individual institution level. It will also be required to publish the amounts it transfers to BIG. Under company law, the reclaim fund will be required to prepare and file annual accounts with Companies House, which may be accessed by all interested parties. We expect that under company law and accountancy rules the reclaim fund will publish an explanation of its reserves, including those to meet anticipated reclaim requests and expenses, so that there is a true and fair view. Detailed information about its financial position will be available from its annual accounts. Amendment No. 29 seeks that this should be presented to Parliament. The information that the reclaim fund will be required to publish will be publicly available. We can see no compelling reason why this information should be presented to Parliament. I do not think the noble Lord has identified the way in which he suggests it should be. As I argued earlier, it would not be appropriate for the reclaim fund to have to publish information about non-participating banks and building societies, with which it will have no contact. Amendment No. 29 would oblige the reclaim fund to take on a new role, rather in the way that Amendment No. 27 would. I take the noble Lord’s point that it may not be a dramatic new role, but it would be a monitoring role and that is not the point of the setting up of the reclaim fund. It would add some costs and would reduce the amount of money available for distribution. The press notice of 8 November from which I quoted, particularly in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, sets out the process for setting up the fund and how that fund will operate. The legislation that we are debating sets out the conditions to which the fund will be subject. It will be authorised by the FSA and there will be checks and balances in the articles of association, including the information that the reclaim fund will be required to publish and how the disclosure requirement will be enforced. The level of information that is required is set out in the Bill and I have already referred to it. How the information is published will, in the end, be up to the reclaim fund company. We would expect directors to take a sensible approach to it. This will be a private company—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has made constantly during the Committee’s proceedings—and how the information is published will be up to it. If it does not publish the information that it is required to by the Bill, which hopefully will become an Act of Parliament, then other considerations come in. But we do not see a compelling necessity for there to be a report to Parliament on this matter.