This is an interesting set of amendments. When the Bill becomes an Act, it will result in the establishment of a reclaim fund, which will be a limited company. If it is to carry the support of the public, the operation of the scheme must be transparent and its decisions, as well those participating in the scheme, must be subject to scrutiny. We will look into that in three years' time, but what we will really want to know is which banks and building societies are foot dragging and are choosing not to participate. If we know who they are and we can benchmark them against those who are participating, we could bring them before the Treasury Select Committee, for example, which could then ask them directly why they are not participating in the voluntary scheme.
It may be that banks and building societies have very good reasons not to participate, but equally it may be that they frankly cannot be bothered. Only through public scrutiny and public opprobrium can we bring them to the table. I say ““only””, but there is, of course, another mechanism of statutory regulation. In that case, after three years, the House says, ““You organisations are not pulling your weight. We have tried the voluntary route, but we are now going to go down the compulsory route—and you will participate in this scheme””. That would be a great shame, but it could happen.
As for the Treasury's direction of this limited company—the Treasury's right to direct it—it would be helpful if the Minister put some scenarios before the House to explain why or when the Treasury might wish to exercise such power. After all, having served in Committee, I believe I am right to believe that the Bill allows for the establishment of a limited company that would be regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Only extreme circumstances would allow the Treasury to start to interfere in day-to-day operations, but we know that such circumstances arise, as we have seen recently in the banking sector—I sincerely hope that this rather small organisation does not experience the same type of crisis in two or three years' time.
I listened to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and I heard his concerns, so I think it would be helpful if the Minister brought us in on some of the conversations he has had with his civil servants on what circumstances might trigger a direct intervention from the Treasury. If nothing else, that would put our minds at rest.
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Charles Walker
(Conservative)
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 c58-9 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:26:19 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505422
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505422
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_505422