Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 13: 13: After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause— ““Triennial report to Parliament (1) Within three years of the commencement of this Act, and not more than every three years thereafter, the Treasury shall prepare a report on the operation of the dormant accounts arrangements. (2) The report shall include— (a) the effectiveness of arrangements that exist to enable those with rights, including those whose rights are established by way of a will, in respect of accounts with banks and building societies to trace those accounts and to be paid money held in those accounts; (b) the amount of money which has been transferred to one or more reclaim funds under section 1 and to charities under section 2 in the period covered by the report; (c) an estimate of the amount of money which could be transferred under sections 1 and 2 together with the Treasury’s view of the possible reasons for such money not being transferred; (d) the effectiveness of the arrangements made by reclaim funds to meet repayment claims; (e) the appropriateness of the way in which banks and building societies have identified accounts as dormant within section 10; (f) the desirability and practicality of establishing similar schemes for other categories of assets which have or may become dormant; and (g) any other matters that the Treasury considers to be relevant to the operation and scope of the dormant account arrangements. (3) If the report shows any of the matters covered by the report are unsatisfactory in any respect, the Treasury shall state— (a) the improvements that could be made to the arrangements; (b) whether those improvements require legislation or could operate on a voluntary basis; (c) the timescales involved in achieving those improvements; (d) the detailed actions that the Treasury propose to take. (4) Before preparing the report the Treasury shall consult those persons who it considers have relevant knowledge of the operation of the dormant account arrangements. (5) The report shall be published in such manner as the Treasury shall determine and shall be laid before each House of Parliament.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment inserts a new clause after Clause 10 requiring a triennial report to Parliament on the operation of the dormant account arrangements. As the Minister will recall, we had long discussions in Committee about the arrangements to transfer dormant account money. Very broadly, we argued for more specificity in this Bill, but the Minister’s consistent response was that these arrangements constituted a private scheme undertaken voluntarily. He said that the reclaim fund was a private fund and that Part 1 merely facilitated private arrangements. That was the Government’s main reason for resisting a large number of amendments. We simply do not buy the approach of little involvement from the Government but, importantly, almost no involvement from Parliament. The Government have reached an agreement with the British Bankers’ Association and the Building Societies Association that they will hand over the dormant money; and that is good. But the Government have been so keen to get their hands on the money that they have agreed to leave the banks and building societies almost entirely in the driving seat for the detailed arrangements. We do not believe that the Government’s approach is responsible. Instead of tabling a raft of detailed amendments, we have decided to propose this amendment to give the Treasury and Parliament more insight into various aspects of the arrangements. We have chosen a pragmatic path, which involves reporting to Parliament on the scheme as it starts to work. My amendment requires a report by the Treasury to be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament every three years. It has to cover many of the things that we have already discussed today, and I hope it meets the concerns of the charities behind the Unclaimed Assets Charities Coalition, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is no longer in her place, spoke. New subsection (2)(a) deals with the issue of the register. We debated that matter earlier today. We firmly believe that it is important that there is continuing scrutiny about how well those arrangements are working in practice. We recognise that many in the charity sector doubt whether they will do so. Parliament needs to keep that under review. Paragraphs (b) and (c) focus on how much is actually being transferred to the scheme and how much could be transferred. Again, there are doubts about whether this voluntary scheme will be fully complied with. This will allow an ongoing review. That was one of the concerns outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and it is an alternative approach to compulsion. Paragraph (e) focuses on whether the repayment arrangements work in practice. They have to work well if consumers are to have confidence in a scheme that transfers their money ultimately to the Big Lottery Fund. I have already spoken this afternoon about how banks identify accounts as dormant. The Bill’s minimalist approach may or may not cause problems in practice. The Bill says that dormancy will start only after 15 years, which is way in excess of any other international scheme. We need to keep under review the evidence of the relationship between the expiry of time and dormancy. This and other issues in relation to dormancy are covered by paragraph (e). As we debated in Committee, the Bill modestly confines itself to the accounts held in banks and building societies. We were unable to table amendments to cover the wider range of other assets that are similarly lying unclaimed. We want to keep public focus on expanding the range of assets to be liberated from dormancy and put to good use. That concern is also shared by the Unclaimed Assets Charities Coalition. This is provided by paragraph (f); and paragraph (b) will allow any other matters to be addressed. The report will require the Treasury to identify unsatisfactory arrangements and say how improvements could be made and whether legislation is required. We do not believe that legislation is automatically required where deficiencies are identified. The nature of a voluntary scheme, as the Minister said this afternoon, is that it has flexibility and can change. What better way to promote change than a debate sparked by a report prepared by the Treasury and laid before Parliament? I do not rule out further legislation. Sometimes that is required, but we hope that when something can be done voluntarily it will be, because volunteerism is always our first port of call. In Committee, the Minister told us that the Treasury would review the scheme at some time and in some way. It was not clear whether such a review would be published. That is not good enough. We believe that parliamentary involvement should be hard-wired into this Bill on the basis of a regular report. I beg to move.