Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I thank other Members of the Committee who have spoken in this short debate. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of why small building societies are not covered. It can be summed up by saying that the Treasury does not trust any other department to use statutory instrument powers properly so it will include them in its legislation. It is rather incongruous for the Treasury to use its powers but for another bit of government not to be trusted. That does not say much for joined-up government. However, I am grateful for the explanation and the Government’s commitment to make the appropriate order in relation to small building societies. That brings us back to the main disclosure requirements. I do not think that it is an either/or situation where either the reclaim fund or the banks are disclosing; there is a perfectly legitimate case for both to disclose. When we debated the requirement in Schedule 1 for the reclaim fund to disclose amounts, the Government resisted, on entirely spurious grounds of administrative complexity, the requirement for the reclaim fund to say which banks had not contributed to the reclaim fund and which had not transferred any money to the reclaim fund under the terms of the Bill. It is entirely legitimate for us to look to the banks to make disclosures about how much they have paid, and whether or not they have paid, because there is a focus on a bank when it produces its annual report and accounts. My noble friend Lord Hamilton referred to the comparison that can rightly be made between the amounts that the banks devote to charitable funds and activities, which are required to be disclosed, and the amounts transferred to the reclaim fund because there may well be trends which do not reflect well on the banks over time. We hope that will not be the case, but at least it is the right place for that disclosure to be made. We fully support disclosure being made by the reclaim fund as well. We also want the reclaim fund to name those banks and building societies which have not taken part in the scheme. I accept what the Minister said about Amendment No. 49 but the other amendments are still relevant to the issue of transparency. As the Bill is drafted, the reclaim fund has only partial transparency and the complementary bank-specific disclosure still remains an entirely valid and appropriate way for banks to disclose their participation in this voluntary scheme. If it were a compulsory scheme, I would not be suggesting this because there would be mechanisms to ensure that the right amounts were being transferred. However, because it is a voluntary scheme, we want transparency to act as an underpinning to voluntarism. We are seeking transparency and I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. We shall have to consider our position before returning to the issue on Report, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 48 not moved.] Clause 13 agreed to. [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]