We agree with the noble Baroness that the scheme should be transparent. We agree that information on how much banks and building societies transfer to the reclaim fund under Clause 1 should be disclosed and that building societies participating in the option for smaller institutions should be required to include in their annual reports the details of charities to which they have transferred dormant account money. We do not consider the amendments necessary, however. Under the provisions made by Schedule 1, the reclaim fund itself will publish information on how much money it receives from each individual institution, whether it is a large bank or a large building society.
The comparison—the competition as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, described it—will be found in looking at what the reclaim fund publishes as information. It will be collected as a single source by the reclaim fund and we believe that that is the most transparent way of ensuring that people can access it and make comparisons. We do not feel that it is necessary to add to the Bill the provision for large banks—or even large building societies, should there be a forthcoming amendment at some future date.
The disclosure requirement in relation to small, locally based building societies participating in the scheme can already be imposed and will be imposed by the Treasury through an amendment to the relevant building society account regulations. I understand that the general principle is that when a regulation-making power exists, as it does for building societies, under which the relevant provisions can be made, it is normal practice for that power to be used rather than making new provision in primary legislation. That is why, as far as smaller building societies are concerned, Amendment No. 49 is not necessary because we will do what it proposes under regulation.
The Treasury intends to amend the relevant regulations dealing with building society accounts and reports that are made under the Building Societies Act 1997. Therefore, we do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I can see that the next question will be why the Bill includes provision imposing disclosure requirements for smaller banks as opposed to smaller building societies. That is because the relevant regulation-making powers lie with the Secretary of State under the Companies Act 2006, rather than being exercised by the Treasury. It was thought that, on balance, it would be better to include in the Bill a position for small banks, but I am telling the Committee that small building societies will be covered by regulation.
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 10 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c361-2GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:31:46 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_433100
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_433100
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_433100