Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I should first say that our amendment, signed by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, was an attempt to combine different aspects of previous amendments into a single text. The result is, as noble Lords can see, a fairly lengthy shopping list. The thing about shopping lists is that something is always forgotten; something always falls off the end. That makes their operability in legislation perhaps less than perfect.

We envisaged, in construct, that the amendment would cover what had happened during the relevant period and whether the funding was delivering on the scheme’s priorities. So, we are grateful—I am certainly very grateful—to the Minister for his constructive approach to discussions since taking up his post. I believe that Amendment 7 represents a fair compromise. I think the Minister has said the reports will combine information that was already available from other sources —annual reports et cetera—but also require the Secretary of State to go somewhat further, including by giving information on whether and how the additionality principle has been adhered to. We have heard in earlier debates how important that is.

We hoped to gain more from the Government, including more concrete data on the contribution that funds make to people and communities subject to high levels of deprivation and inequality, but I am sure that there will be further consideration of such issues in the other place, and perhaps in our debates here as well, as this legislation kicks in. I am impressed with the approach the Government have taken, and they have certainly listened to our Committee considerations, taking on board the core of what we are after. Nothing is ever perfect, but this goes a long way in the right direction. While I would have preferred our amendment, I was more than happy to sign up to the Government’s, as it represented real progress in the way we considered the Bill.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, as I am sure the Minister has noted, there were significant contributions about review in the earlier stages of the Bill. It is in that vein that these Benches worked with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on Amendment 8. Like him, I still prefer some of the content of Amendment 8 and wish to try to establish how far the wording of the relevant bits of the amendment put forward by the Government delivers similar things. I appreciate the efforts which have been made, in the review amendments and concerning consultation but, as has already been aired by my noble friends, there are certain things which do not appear necessarily to carry through exactly as expected.

First, can the Government say whether their review can do everything envisaged by Amendment 8? Further, is there appetite to cover everything covered by Amendment 8? The first difference was on timing. The Minister said that they would broadly follow the three-year and five-year timing proposed in Amendment 8, which is one tick. The next big difference is whether the review will cover the worthiness of the expenditure and whether—as in subsection (2)(b) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 8—the expenditure has met the scheme’s underlying objectives, particularly the criteria listed in subsection (2)(c) addressing deprivation, inequality, the capacity of social enterprise and charity, and the principle of additionality. I am particularly interested in these policy criteria because the wording of the consultation introduced by Amendment 3—which we broadly support—nevertheless leaves an open question about what the conclusion of that consultation will be. It could change the direction of policy. One could say that it is acceptable that a public consultation is used to change the direction of policy, but is that what the previous consultation paved the way toward, when it consulted about whether further dormant assets should be incorporated into the scheme, as had been successfully done for bank deposits? It seems that public consent, in essence, was given to the first Act on the basis of additionality and the worthiness of the public goods undertaken with the money. If there was a substantive change from that, the public might be surprised, even if it was the result of a consultation held with many more responses coming from well-funded private enterprises and the “usual suspects”, in the terminology that we have adopted.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Grand Committee

The other thing that troubled me—again, I might be wrong and hope that the Minister can correct me—was that, when I looked at the various review proposals for the dormant assets scheme, I could not see where there will be a discussion of additionality. Just as there was no discussion of the impact, there was none of additionality either. I am quite concerned to understand how all this will work together and how we can genuinely give confidence to those who are the true owners of these funds, even if they do not know it, that their money will not be used as a substitute for taxes and public spending. It is to provide something additional and highly desirable, but that it would not be appropriate for a Government to fund. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as relatively few of us are speaking on this group, I follow straight on from my noble friend Lady Kramer. Unsurprisingly, I agree with everything she said. She has been putting her finger on quite a few weaknesses and gaps that appear in the Bill. We are all concerned to make sure that the money available does additional good work. It should not be used as an excuse by the Government to put in less than they would have otherwise, so that they do not take it into account by thinking they do not have to do quite so much because a top-up might come along from the dormant assets fund.

On that point, I am also curious as to what “unlikely to be made available by Government” means. It is hard to free one’s mind from the concern that the Government will somehow take account of this pool of money as a back-up, no matter what they say. Indeed, on Monday my noble friend referenced the money put in for Covid purposes and said that it was muddying the waters. The fact that the Government are prepared to recite it altogether means that they are taking it into account in some kind of bigger picture. It is hard to escape that point of view. The last thing we want is for there to be a pattern of cuts, followed by replacement funding.

In debate on the first group of amendments, the Minister said that the funding was intended to achieve maximum impact. That really means that it has to be doing things that would not otherwise be done or things that were previously being done, but from which the Government have decided they can withdraw. I am not saying that it cannot be used for that in extremis if the need is so great, but that cannot be the pattern that we allow. As my noble friend said, it would essentially mean that the money was in one way or another replacing taxation.

We debated this on Monday and, as my noble friend Lady Kramer also said, we have talked about reports and reviews. It is important to show how the money has been spent, and to show additionality—in other words, to show that there is clear water between the use of the funds and what the Government do. Perhaps this is a bit of a conflation of ideas but if things like community wealth funds might be going in at a different level, it could mean that they were more isolated from the risk of becoming replacement funding, in places where the Government have pulled out. This would be new funding.

We need something more in the Bill, unless the Minister can explain categorically that that idea is there. She may make statements about how the spending will be used but it would also be good, in the context of a review clause, to ensure that there is a review to find out whether things have actually happened that way, regardless of the original intention.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for tabling Amendment 60, which touches on an issue raised by many on Second Reading. I thought I heard the Minister, who has been extremely courteous throughout these proceedings, mention the Government’s intention to treat funds from dormant assets as additional to what is distributed through the other distributing bodies fed from the National Lottery.

The inclusion and identification of new dormant asset proceeds is welcome. I acknowledge the earlier commitment that these funds will remain additional, rather than replacing other types of financial help; that is extremely important. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has laid out the case well. There is consensus that we do not want funding of this nature to be replacement funding for mainstream government financing programmes.

If it is really the Government’s intention that this money should be used on top of other funding sources, I ask the basic, simple and fundamental question: where is the harm in the Government accepting this amendment? If they did, there would be a clear statement of policy intent, giving a clear direction on the face of the Bill. If the Minister says that the Government cannot do so, I shall be extraordinarily disappointed. However, I would be more than happy to work with colleagues across the House on this—and with the Government themselves, if they are not content to accept the amendment—to bring forward an alternative to the text in this amendment on Report. There probably is consensus that that would be the right thing to do.

Another important factor to bear in mind is that dormant asset funding will grow only as we find new dormant assets that can be used for charitable purposes. In no way should they be seen as an alternative source of funding, replacing government mainstream funding. For that reason, it would be right to put a commitment in the Bill, as a statement of principle, so I am more than happy to support the noble Baroness’s amendment.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is quite useful to speak relatively late in this debate, because we have had a good flavour of the things that noble Lords are interested in. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about additional assets, although I disagree with her in that I think there is room, as many other noble Lords have suggested, for a more general review clause. As has been suggested, between us perhaps we can find what shape that should have. There may also be a question over whether to load the review of potential new assets into that repeating review or to have separate reviews. That is something I have not yet resolved on in my own mind.

Amendment 65 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Kramer concerns the report to Parliament, which is styled in the manner of a report from the Treasury and encompasses many of the features already discussed. It is obviously a probing amendment at this stage and covers a review of how the dormant assets scheme has worked, and then a review every three years.

It is probably too long not to have a review until three years from now. I almost want a review now, because an early review makes sense from the perspective of the point of transfer to Treasury responsibility and because there are now several years of experience of how the bank account side of things has progressed over time. That provides a datum against which to measure progression of other assets as they are brought in, and maybe to understand more about the differences as they emerge. I am sure that such monitoring has to be done anyway, but it is a matter of interest to Parliament. I therefore think it is reasonable to have the basis to interest Parliament with a review and to have a few more debates. I have not come across a debate on this before, though obviously I am much newer to this House than some other noble Lords.

I will highlight two specific things from my amendment. The first is the mention in proposed new subsection 1(b) of reviewing

“the effectiveness of the efforts made by financial institutions to secure that those entitled to money in inactive accounts are made aware of the fact.”

It now appears that there have been rather fewer claims on dormant assets than originally provided for—a matter we will return to in later amendments—but that does not explain what the various steps are and when they are taken.

I am curious about this from a recent personal experience when a bank used the notifier on a death certificate to locate the next of kin for one of my husband’s deceased brothers, but it was over 14 years after he died. The notifier had in fact moved, fortunately only once, and a letter eventually got to her and thence onward to my husband. I have absolutely no knowledge as to whether that is a typical time period before using such steps for tracing to take place, but it seems that the chance of success is much greater if tracing happens sooner and does not wait for when transfer to the dormant assets system is possible or imminent.

For pensions, of course, we are hoping that the pensions dashboard and other digital mechanisms will help keep people more attached to their money, but I am interested to know the point at which efforts are made, because it seems that it should not wait until that transfer point. It is thoughts such as that which lie behind seeking review of the effectiveness of efforts made by financial institutions. When things are done is as key to effectiveness as what has been done.

The second thing I want to highlight—it is really a collection rather than an individual point—are the issues in my subsection (2), in particular about the promptness of transfer of funds, their use and the value for money of the scheme. Again, as we will come on to in later amendments, there will have been caution over transfers at the start but by now there should be much more confidence about projections and risk assessments, and that should have flowed through to the efficiency and value for money of the scheme. It will also be important to follow what I would expect to be a similar kind of cautious and then maybe more aware progression for the new assets.

More generally, there seems to be a good case for review of all the matters that have been raised by the amendments in this group, and I hope that the Minister will note the interest in that and look favourably on an amendment on Report. If the Government were so inclined—as they seem to like amendments so far—to bring forward some more as a consequence of our discussion, maybe this is even something we could all work together on.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group touch on quite a wide range of topics. I hope it will be acceptable if I skim over them.

I want to start by picking up the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and even more strongly in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which stress the significance of—and make sure that there is capacity for—additional assets to be added to the scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, summed up that particular set of problems exceedingly well. There is absolutely no reason why the Treasury should be sitting on a whole lot of dormant assets. In fact, there is no reason why anybody should be sitting on a whole lot of dormant assets.

I would like an answer to the question about lifetime ISAs that I raised in the first group. I have no idea of the size of the pool of lifetime ISAs that cannot be put into the dormant assets scheme because without amendment that would trigger a taxable event. It would be good to have clarity on whether these are tiny sums or rather big numbers; I fear it is the latter. This would be a good opportunity to put some pressure on the Treasury to sit down and write the two or three clauses needed to amend that particular set of problems.

At Second Reading I mentioned that the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, was considering tabling some amendments which would expand the scheme to include dormant betting accounts. I need to tell the Committee that he has decided not to, for some fairly straightforward reasons. After discussion with the industry, it became clear that it would not agree to participate in the scheme, which is voluntary. This is because under the current arrangements those dormant accounts can be reclassified into the profit lines of the various companies in the industry. Of course, they then pay taxes on those profits and it does impact nominally on the size of their contribution to the voluntary levy they are involved in, but it is still a meaningful source of income for them. I know that there is going to be reform of the gambling industry; this strikes me as an excellent opportunity to deal with that problem, because surely this should not be money for a company’s bottom line—these are dormant accounts, and I think all of us across the Committee would far rather see them put to good use.

I want to pick up a couple of issues raised in Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bowles, to which I have also added my name—particularly the paragraph she discussed on

“the effectiveness of the efforts made by financial institutions to secure that those entitled to money in inactive accounts are made aware of the fact.”

As she said, the right moment for this is as soon as the accounts begin to look dormant, not 14 years later.

I note the memo from the insurance trade body, the ABI, which most of us have probably received. It said that

“a step change in reconnection efforts will only truly be achieved through the use of Government data, which can be used to verify customers’ addresses and would vastly improve industry’s tracing efforts.”

Can the Minister comment on that? If things could be done at government level to greatly enhance reclaim, that would be useful and a comfort to all of us as we become much more aggressive about making sure that more and more assets go into the dormant assets scheme.

I move to the points made by my noble friend Lady Barker on the impact of the dormant assets scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that it is not something to review, but we have to recognise that this is not a straightforward area. Since we have mandated the scheme, we surely have a responsibility to know what happens with those dormant assets and exactly what they are achieving. I make a gentle point, noting the 9 June report of the Public Accounts Committee in the other place on the distribution of Covid support for charities, which says that it is

“unclear what influence special advisers had over some funding decisions, with some charities awarded government funding despite the Department’s officials initially scoring their bids in the lowest scoring category, including four out of the five lowest scoring applications.”

This suggests that identifying who should be a recipient is not straightforward. While we hope, of course, that we have chosen the right intermediaries, that they have processes in place and that the oversight is working, I believe that Parliament cannot walk away from this—so it is necessary that a report comes back to us covering this range of issues.

We will address additionality later but, if the Minister is concerned to explain constantly that the dormant assets scheme is entirely independent from the Government, she might want to look at the Government’s own website. I was going to quote it next week and had it in front of me just a moment ago. Anybody reading it would certainly assume that the Government were entirely in control, certainly of the £150 million from dormant assets that was used to support Covid. I have the text before me now. It says:

“The government has pledged £750 million to ensure VCSE can continue their vital work supporting the country … including £200 million for the Coronavirus Community Support Fund, along with an additional £150 million from dormant bank and building society accounts.”


To anybody reading that document, the Government have made clear that this is their decision, direction and influence. If that is not the case, it should not be written in that way; the Government cannot have it both ways. This may be independent and the money distributed on the basis set out in this legislation, but we are moving towards a situation in which the Secretary of State will be able to have a great deal of direct influence over where the money is distributed by changing the uses of the funds, et cetera. All of that brings us back to reporting for clarity, to make sure that everything is transparent—that strikes me as crucial.

I very much support all the measures here which, in various ways and in different clauses, call for proper review and transparency. Many of us coming to this for the first time have been quite shocked at how little anybody seems to know about a scheme that has been controlling £1 billion in assets and will be controlling several billion more in assets, and which surely will have a very significant impact for good, ill or indifference—so we really do need answers to all our questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for adding her name to the amendment.

At Second Reading, I asked the Government whether they would switch from using private sector auditors for Reclaim Fund Ltd to using the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I was disappointed that my noble friend the Minister did not reply to that when she wound up the debate; nor did she write to me following the debate. However, the Government’s Back-Benchers are well aware that they are generally not the priority of Ministers and I do not hold it against her.

At Second Reading, my primary focus was on switching the statutory audit arrangements. All limited liability companies, apart from very small ones, are required to be audited by statutory auditors. The Companies Act 2006 opened up the possibility, for the first time, of the appointment of the C&AG to companies in the public sector. That was in response to a report by Lord Sharman, who sadly has now retired from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will explain what arrangements will be made for the statutory audit of Reclaim Fund Ltd, now that it is fully within the public sector. It has been audited by private sector auditors to date. I continue to believe that it should be audited by the C&AG.

Last week, I had a helpful meeting with my noble friend the Minister and her officials. They said that the audit would be carried out by the C&AG in future and that the power for this existed under the National Audit Act 1983. This left me a little confused because that Act does not deal with the statutory audit of companies incorporated under the Companies Act. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify the position today. In the first group, she referred to value-for-money auditing—I shall come to that in a moment—but she did not refer to statutory audit.

My reasons for shifting the financial audit of Reclaim Fund Ltd from private sector auditors were partly because it would be cheaper but mainly because the National Audit Office carries out value-for-money work, not just financial audits. I believe that there are strong grounds for believing that the activities of Reclaim Fund Ltd would benefit from a value-for-money audit. For example, I believe that the ultra-cautious approach to the investment of the huge funds that are retained within the company has not optimised the income of the company. It has offices in St James’s Square, which, I wager, is not the most cost-effective location. Every penny that is either spent unwisely or represents forgone income translates into less money flowing to the good causes that should be funded by the dormant assets.

This is why I have tabled an amendment for Committee that focuses on value-for-money audits alone. Value-for-money audits are a routine part of auditing in the public sector, and those bodies that are in the public sector but are not government departments usually have the C&AG specified as their auditor by statute. However, some, like Reclaim Fund Ltd, are not set up like this and value-for-money audits generally proceed on a voluntary basis. I assume that this will be the basis underpinning the upcoming VFM audits that my noble friend referred to earlier.

As there have been some difficulties in getting the NAO into some bodies in the past, it has been necessary from time to time to make statutory provision for this. However, these have generally been big beasts rather than a small company such as Reclaim Fund Ltd. My amendment is drafted on the basis of what is now Section 7D of the Bank of England Act 1998—inserted by the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016—which was necessary to get access for the C&AG to carry out value-for-money audits in the Bank of England. Obviously, it would be best if the C&AG did both financial and value-for-money audits on Reclaim Fund Ltd.

I very much look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because I support entirely the objective that has been so well outlined already by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Like her, I share the view that both the statutory audit and the value-for-money audit should be provided for. I will defer to her superior knowledge in terms of which bodies tend to be routinely audited or where there is a degree of optionality, or, at least, life is made difficult so that you have to have something like Section 7D of the Bank of England Act 1998. I too had a meeting with colleagues and the Minister in which I believe it was said that the audit would be by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but I am not sure now whether that is absolutely the case, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has said.

It is very important that we have, for the record, a knowledge of exactly what is expected to happen and whether there is any optionality about it. If there is some kind of optionality, then it is necessary to have an amendment of the kind proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The record has to be clear as to what will happen. I am sure the Minister has all the best intentions, but it is obviously not quite such a clear-cut situation as we have been led to believe. If no fulsome response is available at this point in time, then it is absolutely necessary that we have the information about that well in advance of Report so that we can know whether there is still a need for the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

51: Clause 27, page 20, line 33, at end insert—
“(3) The provision in subsection (2) may be taken into consideration by an authorised reclaim fund when setting the amount of reserve that it holds in order to meet any reclaims.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the Government’s guarantee with a view to enabling a lower reserve: currently Reclaim Fund Ltd reserves 40% of its funds to meet any reclaims and releases the remainder to charity.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Kramer. I also support the similar aim in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

As I indicated at Second Reading, I was surprised at the level of funds kept back from distribution in order to cover possible repayments. It was 40% that alarmed me but, as the Minister explained subsequently in our meeting, it was actually 60%, which is even more alarming. That is travel in the right direction, but it still seems to be excessive prudence.

With regard to bank and building society account assets, even if there were no change in the status of Reclaim Fund Ltd, there is a change of status in that the Government are essentially a guarantor and can provide a loan to cover a deficit. That makes a difference and it should be utilised, whether by influencing the risk appetite, which is where I have directed my amendment, or by specific guarantee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests.

I am not suggesting that a reclaim fund should take an outlandish view of risk, but the fact is that it should not be necessary to be ultra-cautious, because the consequence of extraordinary and unexpected reclaim amounts would be the triggering of a loan from the Treasury rather than a call on the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. I am well aware that protection of such compensation schemes can feature as a large factor in the mind of the regulators when they give advice about what would be the right approach. We know this to be a fact when it comes to the Pensions Regulator; I have discussed that extensively on another Bill, although that is not in the Minister’s purview. It could well have been a factor in the Financial Conduct Authority’s computations and its part in advising on the provisioning. I would like to know whether that is the case and whether there is any suggestion of reviewing that in the light of the change in status and the removal of access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and its replacement with the availability of the Government’s loan.

I recognise the need to protect the public purse, about which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is concerned in his amendment, but a loan is not a giveaway; it is a mechanism to smooth the unexpected and remove the need for an excessively cautious risk appetite. That is the direction I am coming from in my amendment: to allow the loan possibility to influence risk appetite and change it from an ultra-cautious to a mid-range approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has taken a more formalised accounting approach and I have no problem with that as a mechanism. The point on which we concur is that being ultra-cautious needlessly keeps funds doing nothing. That is wasteful when the loan facility or another mechanism exists. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 53 in this group. It is very much on the theme of Amendment 51, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, just spoke to. As she said, the common ground between us is that the amount of money kept back in Reclaim Fund Ltd as reserves for repayment claims is much too high. Like her, I was shocked when I found out that the company started off by holding back 60% of the funds transferred from banks and building societies. The fact that it is now 40% is no great comfort.

When the then 2008 Bill was debated in your Lordships’ House, the Government could offer no estimate of the amounts that would be held back, but the kind of figure that we talked about was 10%. Surprisingly, that is not a million miles away from the experience to date, which is between 5% and 7%. The ultra-cautious reserving policy adopted by the company has meant that around £500 million has been held back. Just think what could have been achieved in the voluntary sector if even half of that had been released.

Nothing in the 2008 Act required this to happen, but the Act did require any reclaim fund to embed in its articles of association the transfer of money for good causes being subject to ensuring that it could meet repayment claims that are prudently anticipated. The issue is about the judgments that have been made for these prudently anticipated repayment claims.

I understand that the calculation of the reserves has been made using actuarial advice. With apologies in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, I was once told that people became actuaries rather than chartered accountants because they found chartered accountancy too exciting. That may well account for the fact that an extreme version of prudence has been at work in this provision.

When the Dormant Assets Commission reported to the Government in 2017, it too was concerned about the amounts held back for both repayment claims and a capital reserve. Both appear to be ultra-prudent. So far as the repayment reserves are concerned, the Dormant Assets Commission recommended using commercial reinsurance against the tail risks driving the extent of this provision. Now that the company is firmly in the public sector, it makes little sense to carry on preparing accounts as though it were a free-standing organisation needing to guard against extreme possibilities for future payments.

The plain fact is that, if Reclaim Fund Ltd overdistributes its funds and runs out of money due to unexpectedly high repayment claims, the Treasury will have to step in. I will comment later on the problems I see with the power in Clause 27 to lend money to the company, but I believe that the crucial issue is that the Treasury now de facto stands behind the company. It should now be run from a financial management perspective in that light. It would not make sense to buy commercial reinsurance for the company’s tail risks because the public sector can bear such risks on its own balance sheet, which is why the Government rarely, if ever, buy commercial insurance.

My Amendment 53 could have tried to replicate an internal public sector reinsurance arrangement, but that felt rather artificial. Instead, it would give the Treasury power to guarantee the liabilities of the company, which it de facto does anyway now that it is in the public sector, and to tell the company how much of that guarantee can be taken into account when it makes its determinations under the 2008 Act about how much to anticipate on a prudent basis. It is now the Treasury’s responsibility to determine how much can be released for good causes. It must not hide behind an artificial construct of a limited liability company making its own judgments because, in the context of the public sector, the broad shoulders of the sector is bearing the risks anyway.

Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, basically links the power of the Treasury under Clause 27 to lend money to a reclaim fund when it calculates its provisions for liabilities. I do not think that that works in accounting purposes because, whether or not it is drawn down, the availability of a loan has no impact on the calculation of a liability. A loan is about funding—that is, cash flow—rather than the amount that is or may become payable.

In fact, I believe that the loan power in Clause 27 may be pretty useless. If the directors consider that they are unable to meet their liabilities as they fall due and there is any uncertainty about their financial forecasts, it may well be that the correct course of action for them is to place the company into liquidation. A loan would make sense only if the company had a strictly short-term need for cash but was confident that other funds would flow in from more dormant assets in the future to make up any hole in its accounts.

In any other case, liquidation is the obvious route because directors bear personal responsibility if they trade while insolvent. The Treasury would almost certainly want to avoid liquidation, with the possibility that repayment claims were not met, and would in practice have to recapitalise the company rather than lend money to it if a major loss emerged. So Clause 27 may well be a bit of an illusion, but it is certainly not the basis for reduced provisioning for repayment claims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I accept that I am not going to convince my noble friend this afternoon. Although she may see the fact that Reclaim Fund Ltd is a separate legal entity regulated by the FCA as a fiction, I respectfully disagree. She will decide whether she wishes to meet those from Reclaim Fund Ltd. The reason I felt that it might be helpful is that it may clarify to what extent the current level of reserving is “excessive”, as it was described in the debate this afternoon.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate; it has brought forward shared concerns and different ways of expressing much the same thing. The way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, explained it has been very informative, in particular the comparison with the original suggestion that maybe you need a 10% reserve and that that approach is the reality. Although I expressed it in a different way—I am sure that her amendment is probably crafted better than mine—we share the view about the tail risk and the role of government meaning that you do not have to provide for that in the ultra-cautious way. This also reflects my noble friend Lady Kramer’s comments that it is not being run as an endowment whereby you have to hang on to money. However, I suppose you can argue that there is a perpetual risk because there is an in-perpetuity claim.

It has been interesting to hear the Minister outline some of the concerns about AI tracing and using government data. If the 40% level will be retained as new assets come along, maybe I am not quite so alarmed. I shared the fear of my noble friend Lady Kramer that when these new assets came in, it was going to shoot back up to 60% or beyond.

We have this strange arrangement whereby limited liability companies that are on the public books but have to run under the Companies Act have the possibility of going into liquidation, which is how the directors can protect themselves, but the fact is that the Government will have to pick up the tab. It seems a bit wrong, somehow, not to use what is, in effect, a de facto “extreme circumstance” reinsurance provision that will be triggered come what may. We have to reflect the reality of that, and it is probably rather an excuse to say, “We will have to have it at arm’s length from the Treasury so that it is not interfering in the way the funds will be used.” We will get on to that when we begin to talk about additionality and some of the ways that the money has been deployed.

It may be interesting to have a bit more information on the figures; there are noble Lords who can get their heads around some of this. I am open to having more information and Parliament needs to see this level of it, but I am not entirely certain that I am satisfied at this point—particularly as the section regarding the loan turned out to be really rather meaningless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, outlined. We need some kind of explanation and reassurance either that that is not the case or that it can be made into something meaningful. Otherwise, what is the point of it being there?

This has been a very useful debate, which will continue. I too may consider returning to it on Report. I feel I know more—I have had a little comfort but maybe not yet enough—but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 51 withdrawn.

Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. She is singing the right tune in everything that she said about the value of music education. I also pay tribute to how she has practised what she just preached to us.

I welcome this Bill as a follow-on to the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act, and I am aware that it is welcomed by the industry responsible for the assets, as well as the charitable bodies that hope to put the funds to good use. Participation by industry is voluntary, but it is still expected to be significant, more than doubling the volume of the funds released by the original scheme.

The two main aspects to the Bill are enlargement of scope to include dormant insurance, pension, investment, securities and client account assets and to make the approach to distributing the assets more flexible. A contemporaneous matter is that as from 30 March, Reclaim Fund Ltd has transferred its shareholding from Angel Square Investments—formerly the Co-operative Banking Group—to HM Treasury.

The new dormant assets each have their own clause, but the general principle seems to have been to include at this stage only assets that already have contractual mechanisms that can determine a cash reference value or, as in the case of a collective investment, have an established formula for valuing compensation at a subsequent date. That strategy makes sense in terms of managing liability. I was concerned whether seven years was the right length of time for deeming an asset dormant with regard to pension and insurance-type assets, but, on balance, perhaps I can see the benefit of bringing forward the point at which greater attempts are made to reconnect people with their assets. In theory, that should make it less likely that, for example, the notifier on a death certificate has moved, which is one way of tracing connected people.

Regarding the assets that are not included, the Bill includes the ability to expand to further asset classes. That creates an incentive for industry to develop new contractual terms relating to dormancy and “gone away” in these other kinds of investments so that, ultimately, if that was pursued to the extreme, it could apply to everything. What safeguard is there to make sure that there is not a perverse incentive to change future contractual terms to the detriment of asset owners in general?

One matter that does not appear in the Bill is that directors are free of fiduciary duty in respect of decisions to transfer dormant assets. It may be more complicated for some assets than for cash deposits if there are other, possibly unforeseen, consequential effects—for example, of reducing assets under management. Perhaps the Minister can say something about why there is nothing specific other than with regard to the cash liability.

I have an interest around how risk is determined and managed by the authorised reclaim fund. The Explanatory Notes make it clear, as in the 2008 Act, that reclaim funds are responsible for managing reserves to meet customer reclaims. Presently, 40% of the dormant assets received by Reclaim Fund Ltd are reserved for potential reclaim, which is based on actuarial calculations and recommendations from the FCA. Reclaims actually run at a much lower percentage. According to the 2020 accounts, the dormant assets received were some £89 million, £36 million was reserved for reclaims, and actual reclaims were just shy of £13 million. It is more representative to look at the cumulative figures for reclaims, as obviously they relate to a spread of years. The 2020 accounts show a cumulative liability provision of nearly £474 million against total reclaims since inception of just over £105 million, which is for 10 years of operation.

This low level of reclaim was attributed in the response to the consultation as due to the due diligence in trying to unify assets with their owners. It makes me wonder whether the calculations around that 40% rate should be revisited, at least for the bank and building society assets where there is a track record, presumably not just of the reclaims but of the ages and other data surrounding who has reclaimed. I acknowledge that for the new assets the same reclaim rates may not apply, but I am curious to know how the reunification rates are fed into the retention calculations and how far additional prudence was previously built in—for example by the FCA in order to protect the financial services compensation fund.

I would also like to ask what the attitude is of the Treasury towards the current level of prudence, given the provisions of Clause 27 and the new Treasury ability to provide a loan in the event that a reclaim fund is unable to meet its liabilities. I am not suggesting there should be a gung-ho approach, but with the government loan facility, a future stream of dormant assets and no financial services compensation protection to consider, does that also point to lower provisioning and higher release of funds for good works? Even if half of the 40% retention rate is released, it is a lot more money.

Also on this point, although under Schedule 2 to the 2008 Act there is no profit distribution to the shareholders of an authorised reclaim fund that could distort retention incentives, there is a cost to managing the retained assets as well as, if you like, a charitable lost opportunity cost.

I cited just now some 2020 figures. In fact, in 2020 the amount of £89 million of dormant assets represented a remarkably low year for dormant assets received—the lowest since 2013, when it was £87 million. The intervening years averaged £121 million, although I note that the Minister said that a rather lower £42 million steady state is expected. The year 2020 followed a somewhat bumper year of £147 million in 2019. I am wondering where these projections and steady state numbers come from. I can accept, and maybe it is the case, that projections show more digital banking is likely to keep people better attached to their money but, so far, none of the expectations, whether of the reclaim amount or the general level of the fund, seems to follow the projections.

A related question with regard to pensions and projections is: what effect does the Minister think the pensions dashboard will have in terms of reducing the number of accounts that go dormant because of loss of address? When would it be expected for that effect to kick in?

On the distribution of assets, I accept that a more flexible approach has benefits. However, even with consultation—and I think it should probably be in the Bill—surely the underlying strategic objective should be within the legislation. Ten years on from the 2008 Act, the definition could usefully be widened, but I am concerned about repealing Section 18 of the 2008 Act and leaving no structure. Focusing on a few areas, as the 2008 Act did, should potentially enable a game-changing investment that has a multiplier effect, which is an idea worth hanging on to even if realised partly in a different form. There are proposals around, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, mentioned, relating to a community wealth fund, and that might be one such vehicle. Like him, I would be interested to hear about any thinking that the Government have done on the community wealth fund idea and how better to gain multiplier effects.

Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Insolvency and Dissolution) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2020

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Friday 9th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the open and transparent introduction to this statutory instrument. I come to this debate as a veteran of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which, as the legislative background to the Explanatory Memorandum states, applies to CIOs apart from some housing cases.

When I saw the original SI listed for debate, I signed up to speak vaguely hoping that there might have been some special tailoring for CIOs, because in my heart I am still not convinced that the moratorium is as wholesome as hoped, due to the way in which, if there is an eventual insolvency after a moratorium, it results in creditor superpreference for banks, although this House did manage to chip away at some of that. However, we are where we are, and I guess we will find out how it works out in the end.

Unfortunately, the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI is one of the most unhelpful I have ever seen. While it says that the SI deletes irrelevant things, it says nothing about what is considered irrelevant. I spent some time collating the amendments with the amended Insolvency Act, the 2012 regulations and other regulations, and discovered for myself, as the Minister has admitted, that this will not be the end of the chain. I found that the DCMS did not know what the DWP was doing with regard to the Pension Protection Fund. It was in another concession to this House during the passage of the moratorium legislation that the DWP was given power to regulate for the Pension Protection Fund to have a place at the moratorium table. When regulating for that, the DWP—wisely, in my view—drafted it widely enough to cover CIO pension schemes.

Today, we are debating the second version of the DCMS’s SI, and it is still wrong, because section A51, which relates to the Pension Protection Fund provision, has been deleted. Thus, we will be getting another correction, and, indeed, I note in the Forthcoming Business that on 21 October we are getting another top-up SI from the DWP. Who knows what else may be wrong? That is my criticism: it is impossible to tell from the Explanatory Memorandum what is going on, and it leaves the reader to do all the work. What do we get explained? Well, it explains that the previous statutory instrument was wrongly drafted, and that the second regulation really—really—makes sure that the amendments of the first regulation fall away and we are back to the beginning.

The sole explanation of what else it does is in paragraph 7.2:

“This instrument makes minor and technical modifications to ensure the effective application of the moratorium provisions”.


Finito. Even though the last SI was wrong, and this one is wrong about the interaction with the DWP regulations, we are expected to accept that all is hunky-dory without explanation. Worse, the ordinary person is expected to accept and understand that, because that is who the Explanatory Memorandum is for; it is not just for Members of this House or the other place, who may get suspicious and dig.

The Explanatory Memorandum might have tried a little harder and listed the reasons for the various clusters of amendments, such as “because they relate to Scotland”, which CIOs do not cover. It might have explained that definitions from deleted section A27 have been moved to new subsection 13 in section A31. Indeed, had it explained that section A51 was deleted because it was not thought that CIOs would have pension schemes, someone reading such an explanation might have noticed the mistake; or, thinking about that statement, such a person might have suggested that it would not do any harm to leave it in, even if it remained unused, just in case, and that that would be a better solution.

I am sorry to say it is badly done, because I do appreciate that everyone is under a lot of pressure—but think of all the time wasted on having three SIs when one should have been enough. So, I ask, please try to do better and explain better.

Finally, there was no mention of the solvent voluntary liquidation provision—a substantive provision—in the Explanatory Memorandum, or how that interacts with the change in the creditor order as a result of a moratorium being attempted first. Will the Minister confirm that a different result will happen dependent upon whether or not a moratorium had been tried first, because of the disturbance to the creditor order created by the act of having the moratorium?

Of course, today we will pass this flawed SI—and wait for the next round.

Data Protection: Age-appropriate Design Code

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

The guidance from the Information Commissioner says that for a service to be considered likely to be accessed by a child, the possibility of that happening needs to be more probable than not. Does that mean the probability of one or a few children accessing a site or that 50% of children might do so? Does the Minister agree that a 50% or one in two interpretation is not tight enough?

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Baroness has raised a good point. I will go back and review the guidance and perhaps I may then write to her with a response.