Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I am bound to succumb to the blandishments of the noble Baroness in saying that I agree with her entirely that the Bill should have appropriate levels of transparency on decision-making powers. However, where I disagree with her—I hope not necessitating a further day in Committee—is that I think the Bill already provides adequate transparency. The most significant direction-making power is in Clause 21, whereby any directions given under the clause must be published in Big’s annual report, which must be laid before Parliament and the devolved Assemblies. That is exactly the same approach that obtains with regard to the National Lottery Act 2006 and I do not think that there has been a strong argument that the lottery and its institutions of distribution have been subject to practices that have not been open to scrutiny. This is a much smaller scheme, and a very worthy one indeed, which all the Committee support; but it is a much more minor scheme than the lottery. These provisions already work well in the lottery with regard to accountability to Parliament. Schedule 9, paragraph 3(2), requires Clause 21 directions to be published in Big’s annual report. That will be the point of reference for all who are concerned about distribution of money. Because of that provision, the main direction power is open and transparent. The only other direction-making power is in Clause 5, which merely requests the reclaim fund to comply with one or more of its objects or articles of association. We do not see why we need to lay such a direction before Parliament. Where I am fully in agreement with the noble Baroness is that the operation of this fund must be transparent. That is why the provisions that obtain in the Bill are designed to meet that objective.