My Lords, I am anxious not to delay the House further. I will need to consider carefully the points that the noble Lord made, in particular his reference to a one-stop shop. If one is going to have a one-stop shop, it would seem sensible for that stop to be the reclaim fund rather than any other organisation. The noble Lord did not answer the point that I made at the end in my intervention. As the Bill stands, the reclaim fund seems to be precluded from ascertaining the owners of dormant accounts transferred to it. I do not ask him to respond now, but that is, as I understand it, the way in which the Bill is drafted. I believe that the fund needs to have the authority to do that. I find what is proposed an extraordinarily convoluted way of proceeding. The data are never transferred to the reclaim fund. The noble Lord suggested that, when there is a dispute, the reclaim fund will have to go back to the banks as well, instead of acting as what it is supposed to be—namely, a reclaim fund. However, I do not wish to delay the House further and, although I may want to return to this at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Higgins
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 29 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c561 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:34:10 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440092
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440092
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_440092