I stand corrected on the nuances—the measure would not take people's money for evermore. However, it provides for taking people's money, and they would have to go through a procedure to get it back if they resurfaced after, for example, 20 years.
On Treasury discretion, new clauses 3 and 2 are effectively no different. I prefer new clause 3 because of the factors that it covers. On the review, new clause 3(2) contrasts with new clause 2(4). The subject matter that would be reviewed under Government new clause 3 is rather greater and more intensive than that envisaged under the Opposition's new clause 2.
Similarly, when one contrasts new clause 3(3) with new clause 2(6), the consultation process envisaged in new clause 3 is rather better than that in new clause 2.
For those reasons, if new clause 3 is pushed to a Division, I will support the Government.
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Rob Marris
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 3 November 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
482 c34 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:24:38 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505383
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505383
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505383