Clause 12
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords]
3:30 pm
Tom Levitt (High Peak, Labour)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr. McCrea. I share the bemusement of the hon. Member for Fareham that the Government have chosen to delete the clause rather than to amend it. My hon. Friend the Minister gave a speech a moment ago that he would have given had he been moving amendment No. 18, which has not been selected but which would have deleted the whole clause. I have some sympathy with his argument, but not for removing the question of a review from the legislation completely.
For example, in subsection (1), the words
“and not more than every three years thereafter”
could have been deleted. That would have allowed one review three years after implementation, without a commitment to such a thorough review later on, thereby meeting one of his major objections.
I also accept that clause 12 is incredibly detailed—probably more than is necessary for carrying out the review—but it is an awful lot less detailed and convoluted than it would have been had we accepted amendment No. 7. Therefore, it is not as bad as it might have been. The clause could be amended to improve it, but the Bill not providing for a review would be a mistake.
I hope I deduce from the Minister that we shall be able to put things right, in the sense of being able to make changes to such a scheme, when we come to new clause 2, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South.
What would be the purpose of a review if it was not specified in the Bill? If banks and building societies joined the scheme only on a voluntary basis, they could opt out if they did not like what a review came up with. If the detailed rules of the scheme were those that banks and building societies had drawn up, what would the review be able to achieve? If the review was not carried out by those who were implementing the scheme, the point of the review would not be very strong.
In addition, could the banks and building societies taking part in the scheme not carry out their own reviews and change the scheme rules without referring back to the Government? All those issues will become real questions once the need to have a review of some kind is taken out of the Bill.
I take the Minister’s word that a review will happen, but if we take this approach and if the review cannot make a fundamental decision three years down the line—that decision might be, “This voluntary approach is not working and we need a mandatory approach,” and I feel that a review not specified in the Bill could not say such a thing—I think we are missing a trick.
I am happy to take the Minister’s word that such a review will take place, and I understand why he wants to delete the clause, but we need something stronger from him at some point on what his review will be capable of doing, especially if it concludes that the scheme is not working as well as it might.