Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 43: 43: Clause 10, page 6, line 34, at end insert— ““( ) The Treasury may by order specify matters additional to those mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) in order to identify an account as being dormant or not dormant, as the case may be.”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 43 gives the Treasury power to specify other matters that would lead to an account being treated as dormant or not dormant. It incorrectly refers to subsections (2) and (3). I had intended to specify subsections (1) and (2), and I apologise to the Committee and to any Member who is confused by the intent of the amendment. For the past hour or so we have been debating different aspects of what constitutes an account being dormant or not dormant. The Minister had to move an amendment following representations by deposit takers that the definition was not fit for purpose. I do not suppose that any of us can be sure that we have covered all the angles on this—that is even setting aside the difference in philosophical approach that we have teased out during our discussions this afternoon. The Minister declined to accept my amendments, but even if he had accepted them, I would still have moved this amendment because we would not necessarily be able to identify in advance all the problems that might exist. I do not draft new powers for the Treasury lightly, but I believe that the efficient and equitable working of the dormant accounts scheme would be enhanced by an order-making power to vary its practical effect in the light of emerging facts and circumstances. My amendment is a simple order-making power not subject to the affirmative procedure because I see it being used to deal with matters of detail, not principle. I hope that it will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.