We have heard very interesting exchanges on what the reclaim fund is about. The Minister believes that it will have information only in relation to disputes. I simply do not believe that. In practice, it cannot operate without information because it cannot be satisfied that it is meeting the right obligations. Having the money audited when it flows in has nothing to do with knowing when money eventually has to flow out again. I can perhaps think further about that.
My noble friend Lord Higgins and the right reverend Prelate were concerned about reuniting and whether advertising would be prevented. My amendment would have permitted that, because it exempts disclosure that, "““is necessary for the purpose of enabling or assisting the reclaim fund to exercise any of its functions””."
If one of its functions were reuniting, which I do not think it is, that would not be a problem.
The big issue is whether it is a public body. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, picked me up for saying that it is a public body. I do not think that it is intended to be a public body; it may be intended to be, or actually be, a private body. Many private sector bodies carry out public functions—we have seen that in a number of instances. It has often been my view that the standards that we expect of public authorities where private bodies carry out their functions should be the same as those of public authorities. I can think of amendments that we have successfully made to legislation to enshrine that principle; that is, that when public functions are being carried out, they should be to the same rules. I shall not pursue that argument in this instance, but I would not like to let it pass without making the important point that if functions of a public nature are carried out by a private body, they should be done to the standards of the public authorities and not to any other standards, which is why protection would in principle be valuable.
However, I can see that others are not convinced that the body in question will have a lot of information. I can be proved right only after the event. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Noakes
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 11 December 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c69GC Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:37:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_428552
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_428552
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_428552