Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

Unfortunately, earlier I had to leave the Committee briefly to explain to another meeting that I was preoccupied here. I apologise if I make points that have already been made and answered. I also have a slight difficulty with the groupings. We are debating amendments to Clause 17 but I understand that Clause 17 has already been debated. I have spent something like 50 years in this place and this does not normally happen. However, perhaps I may turn to the amendment in question. As I understand it, the distribution proposals in Clause 17 have previously been agreed outside this Committee and the Government have adopted them for England, but the proposals for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are devolved. Therefore, this clause and the amendment that we are considering are concerned with the allocation and distribution of English expenditure. I managed to return to the Committee at the point where the introductory words relating to paragraph (c) were being debated. As I read it, the situation is clear. Clause 17(1) states: "““A distribution of dormant account money for meeting English expenditure must be””—" I repeat, ““must be””—for something which meets paragraphs (a), (b) or (c). As I understand it, no discretion whatever is given for that allocation. Effectively, under paragraphs (a) and (b), expenditure is restricted to the needs of young people. This seems to be an extraordinary determination in legislation of how the money should be spent. It does not give sufficient discretion, for example, to spend it on old people. Unless the word ““must”” is changed to ““may””, I do not see how that can be avoided. Paragraph (c) is a further proposal which, as my noble friend in moving this amendment pointed out, relates to ““a social investment wholesaler””. That is most extraordinary gobbledygook. When we debated this earlier, there was a long discussion on charities and whether the funds might go directly to charities as a result of the Bill or as a result of the owners of the assets being found and legacies having been determined. Again, the word ““charities”” does not appear at all. Paragraphs (a) and (b) and, in particular, paragraph (c) remove any discretion for charities which do not meet these criteria to be covered. This is widening it a great deal further than I understood the case to be. I have considerable concerns about the clause as a whole. I certainly agree with my noble friend in her amendment to leave out this weird proposal—I think that ““weird”” is the only word for it—for inventing a ““social investment wholesaler”” and then in Clause 17(2) deciding on the meaning of a ““social investment wholesaler”” and a ““third sector organisation”” and so on, rather than simply saying ““charitable purposes””.