Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 10: 10: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause— ““Parliamentary accountability of reclaim fund (1) A reclaim fund must send to the Treasury as soon as possible— (a) a copy of its annual accounts and reports prepared in accordance with Part 15 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46), and (b) a copy of any information published under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to this Act. (2) The Treasury must lay before each House of Parliament— (a) any directions issued to a reclaim fund under section 5(4) of this Act, and (b) any accounts, reports or information received from a reclaim fund in accordance with subsection (1).”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come to parliamentary accountability. One feature of the Bill that was not to my liking right at the start was that I would much have preferred a statutory scheme. That was not to be—neither of the other Front Benches warmed to it—and I have to accept that. However, if we are not to have a statutory scheme, at least let us have some parliamentary accountability, because the Government and the Treasury are involved. Amendment No. 10 would introduce a new clause providing for parliamentary accountability of the reclaim fund. It says: "““A reclaim fund must send to the Treasury as soon as possible … annual accounts and””," other information. It continues: "““The Treasury must lay before … Parliament … any directions””," that it has given to the reclaim fund, as well as accounts and other information. As I said, if we are not to have a statutory scheme, it is important that we make certain that there is real accountability to Parliament. Amendment No. 17 is about the accountability of the general scheme. It was interesting that, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Newby and I were berated by the Minister for not enthusing about the devolution elements. I put that right, right now: I enthuse. Looking at Clause 18 for the Welsh, Clause 19 for the Scots and Clause 20 for Northern Irish, one finds that after some Barnett formula-type split, the devolved Ministers can put an order to those devolved Assemblies, after consultation with the Big Lottery Fund and others, and the orders then have to be approved by resolution of the devolved Assemblies on how the money is spent. But what about England? What we know about the Bill is that the resources that go via the Big Lottery Fund have to be used for young people or for financial inclusion or for the social investment bank. However, there is no order to come back to Parliament; there is no consultation; and there is no suggestion about the disposition of resources between the three types of expenditure. Is it any wonder that some people here think that there is something called ““the English question””? The amendment would bring Parliament back into decision-making for England. We had ripples about this in Committee, particularly about the social investment bank, for which, we are told, there needs to be a serious slab of money. It is clear that the Government are not certain whether they want to go that far, but, if the amendment is passed, the matter will be brought back to Parliament, and Parliament can have its say. I beg to move.