Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

This has been an interesting debate on the independence of the dormant fund money spent by the Big Lottery Fund and on the importance of the public knowing that it is separate and different from other money. All those who have spoken in this debate have emphasised the need for that, and that is what these amendments are about. Even if I had not seen who was to move Amendment No. 54, after reading it I was pretty sure that it would be the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. Who else but him could think of the title ““The Reawakened Fund”” in the context of the Bill? I express agreement, if I may, not with the name itself but with what the right reverend Prelate said—as usual, his choice of words was spot on. However, we support the tenor of what the noble Lord says and how he argues his case. It is important to ensure that the process of distributing unclaimed assets is publicised in a manner that reflects the exciting opportunity here. It is also important to ensure that investments are presented in a suitably distinctive way, reflecting the once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a lasting difference in communities across our country. We believe that Big has done that in respect of some of its other activities. Therefore, I want the noble Lord to understand that we agree entirely with the sentiment, and I am sure that there is no disagreement in the Committee in that regard. However, we think that we can achieve the desired effect without necessarily amending the Bill. There is nothing to stop us referring to unclaimed assets by a distinctive title but, just as the right reverend Prelate said a few minutes ago, we are not certain that we are prepared to settle now on the expression dreamt up by the noble Lord. We think that it is a good try but even he may think that this is not the best description. Perhaps we can consider his suggestion along with others, or perhaps the noble Lord will come up with other suggestions. I think that he understands the spirit on which my reply is based—we like the idea but we are not sure that that is the right title. So far as concerns the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, again, we take his point. It is a probing amendment about publicity regarding the money that will come from the dormant funds. Our view is that dormant account funds are the public’s money, and it is therefore of paramount importance that we achieve the transparency and clarity that he seeks in relation to where the money goes and who benefits. We would go so far as to say that accountability is the key. It is important that people are able to understand and recognise the effective use of the funds in communities across the country. Effective reporting will reinforce such transparency if the public are to support and have confidence in this worthwhile scheme. Concerns were expressed at Second Reading about the need for dormant money to be treated and accounted separately from lottery money. Indeed, I think that that is what the noble Lord is seeking in his probing amendment, and we agree with him. The Big Lottery Fund has been very clear. It will publicise, brand, report and account for dormant accounts funding separately from lottery funding, and we understand why it is important that it should do that in this case.