Dormant Assets Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to crave the indulgence of the Grand Committee in trying to hang on to my fast-disappearing status as a new, inexperienced Member: I wanted to provide an opportunity for a debate on Clause 1, on the overview of the scheme, and I was going to do that by stand part or by putting down an amendment—but I got the timetable wrong and I failed to do so. However, other people have come to my aid, in that there will be sufficient opportunities later in the Bill’s progress to raise the issues that I would have raised here had I got my act together.

I will mention the main issues that I have in mind. Of course, I mentioned them at Second Reading, but the ability to repeat points seems to be one of the great assets of this process that we go through. The first issue that I will come back to at an appropriate time is the whole structure that leads to this situation. We can have a lot of discussion about the process of the dormant assets scheme, but we need to address the question of why dormant assets appear in the first place. It would be wrong to have a full debate on the scheme without at least reflecting, to some extent, on that issue.

In the government consultation and in preceding debates that led to the Bill there has been a lot of discussion by various people about what the financial institutions are doing to make sure that this issue does not arise. In general terms, there has been a lot of discussion of that issue—well, perhaps not a lot—but I am not sure that it really gets anywhere. Everyone expresses intentions, but how detailed the planning is to avoid it happening is a separate issue.

However, I think there is a stage before that. Why do we have a structure that leads to this sort of end result? The fact that this can happen is something that bears investigation—not just because it has happened but what we can do about it—as does the extent to which the financial institutions seem, in one way or another, to try to shift the blame to individuals. There are questions about what we can we do so that it does not happen in the first place, and I will come back to that at a later stage, possibly this afternoon—and I will try not to repeat myself too much.

The other issue is additionality. There has not been nearly enough discussion of what exactly is meant by additionality; there is no clear structure as to how it is defined. I will take the opportunity at a later stage to raise and discuss that issue as well. So I am really just putting these issues on the table and saying that, at the appropriate time, I will raise them at a later stage of the process.

Since I am here and speaking, I will ask something. The Bill was published effectively only a few days ago, yet we end up with this extensive raft of minor technical amendments, which makes the job of understanding what the Bill is doing extremely difficult—twice or three times as difficult. The grid that we have been supplied with for today’s session is extremely useful, but getting it only an hour before the meeting reduces its value. If I had been quick, I would have ticked off which amendments fall into which of the groups that the Minister has identified. It would have been helpful if we had had it earlier and the different groups had been identified on that list. Perhaps we could have that in arrears, as it were.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief. As the Minister has said, these are highly technical amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I am frustrated by so many amendments of a highly technical nature and confess that I have been unable to spend the time to get on top of the impact of those changes. I am therefore wholly reliant on the Government’s definition of them. Even my noble friend Lady Bowles was floored by this number coming at this point. I hope for assurance from the Minister that we are done with these technical changes. This truly is an unusual number for a Bill that everyone has been aware is coming for some time. On additionality, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to, and which I agree is exceedingly important, I have an amendment tabled for Wednesday which tackles that issue. I hope that he will have some input.

I wish to talk about the various amendments to Clause 3 relating to lifetime ISAs, which, in effect, can go into the scheme only if their transfer to a reclaim fund does not trigger a charge payable to HMRC. I am slightly taken aback. HMRC would not be getting its tax payments until the point of reclaim under normal circumstances, so by allowing the assets to go into the dormant assets scheme it loses nothing, not even the timing of the payment of tax charges, because without the reclaim there would be no tax due, as far as I can tell. That strikes me as extraordinary. Why on earth can these assets not be put into the dormant assets scheme? The tax relationship would probably need amending but that is surely not beyond HMRC’s scope. Surely we could ensure that the taxable event happened only at the point of reclaim, as it does right now, meaning there was a bigger pool available for very good causes. Can the Minister give us an idea of what kind of money we are talking about? How much is being denied to the fund because of this constraint that an event which is taxable under today’s legislation is not being amended to make it clear that it is taxable on reclaim, not on transfer to the fund?

I am getting a bit fed up with HMRC. Time and again we get its very narrow focus on tax revenue generation and very little interest in some of the consequences and external impacts of its actions. We have seen it on things such as the loan change, although this is an entirely different issue. Surely it has some responsibility to ensure that the dormant asset programme is as effective and generous as it can possibly be, and therefore making the effort to sit down and draft the various clauses that would in no way deteriorate its current or its proposed tax position, but would allow those assets to be transferred, is a reasonable expectation. I simply do not understand it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

Lord Bassam of Brighton? I think he may have muted his equipment. Can he unmute?

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Kramer (LD)]

I have nothing to add. I looked at the amendments and they all seem to make technical sense to me.

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

My Lords, I have nothing to add except that government Amendment 12 is described as a “verbal error”. I am not quite sure that you can have a verbal error in a piece of written legislation; perhaps the Minister can help us with that one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, again, these amendments relate to the minor and technical amendments about which the Minister, my noble friend Lady Barran, wrote to your Lordships on 14 June.

Amendments 66 to 72 are consequential amendments to the schedules to other pieces of legislation. Amendment 66 would amend references in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to an “authorised reclaim fund”; it would also amend the regulated activities order to ensure that it reflects the wider activities of a reclaim fund provided for by the Bill.

Amendments 67 to 71 would amend the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008. Amendment 67 would ensure that the provisions made in Clause 17(1) of the Bill, on trust and fiduciary duties, apply to banking assets. Amendments 68 and 69 would clarify that the Reclaim Fund is to transfer money from unwanted assets to the National Lottery Community Fund while being able to retain the amount it needs to meet regulatory requirements or expenses. Amendment 70 would remove an unnecessary reference to the deduction of expenses from surplus funds. As these have already been identified as surplus and therefore available in full for transfer to good causes, no further deductions would be needed. Amendments 71 and 72 would ensure that the 2008 Act refers to all types of eligible pensions benefits.

The other amendments—Amendments 11, 32, 38 to 41, 43, 47 to 49, 73, 74 and 76—would ensure that cross-references to the Bill are correct. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will again be brief but I went nearly mad trying to track some of these amendments through. I accept that they are consequential but I have one question. FSMA 2000, an Act with which I have spent far too much of my life, will—after these amendments—now use the phrase “unwanted asset money”. Are the Government comfortable that we do not have a problem with the word “unwanted”? There is a difference between dormant money and money that is unwanted. We all know that the reclaim process is critical but I want to be sure that we have not got ourselves into any tricky corners with all of that. That is my only comment; the intent is obviously consequential.

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

My Lords, I too am broadly satisfied with this collection of amendments, although they raise some questions about the initial drafting. I made a point about that at the outset of this afternoon’s deliberations. I just wonder why we have to amend the definition of “third party” by government Amendment 47. Also, what is not right—this is in government Amendment 49—with the definition of “repayment claims” that requires amendment? Perhaps the Minister could help us with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment, which I support in principle. I am not saying this in jest, but I am always gravely suspicious of lists which involve alliteration, because you are left wondering whether the wish to have all the words starting with the letter E—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—overcomes the need to comprehensively describe what the audit should be doing. Where does “economy, efficiency and effectiveness” come from? Maybe it is a standard phrase which is well established and understood to be comprehensive, but reassurance on that would be helpful.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I very much support everything that has been said so far, and I hope that we will get some clarity. Value for money is critical when we are dealing with these kinds of organisations.

I decided I would take a quick look at the financials of Reclaim Fund Ltd—which does not take very long as they are not hugely detailed—and the number that knocked me over and made me very concerned that value for money was definitely on the agenda was the remuneration of the chief executive. They may be an absolutely stellar individual and I would not wish in any way to criticise the individual personally but, according to the numbers I was looking at, there are 12 employees of Reclaim Fund Ltd, one of whom is the chief executive himself, and the chair. The median CEO salary in 2019 at the largest 100 charities was £155,000 a year, but in 2020 the chief executive of Reclaim Fund Ltd earned £217,000, if I add up simply salary and performance-related pay and leave out the pensions stuff. It struck me as prima facie rather out of line. Making sure that there is an audit that takes value for money into account would certainly give us all much more confidence that these issues were being handled appropriately. I fully understand that, as the asset base expands, there will be more complexity, so maybe there is a changing situation. But the 2019 pay packet was similar and I want to make sure that the appropriate body is focused properly on these issues and that value for money sits right at the front of the audit responsibility.

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

My Lords, it is always nice to be able to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We have crossed swords many times, but I very much share one thing in common with her, and that is a desire to have an absolutely laser focus on getting value for money. So I am very supportive of her amendment; it certainly goes to the right place. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, touched on the importance of that in drawing our attention to remuneration levels within Reclaim Fund Ltd.

We need to be assured that we are getting value for money. Getting the Comptroller and Auditor-General involved in looking at the Reclaim Fund Ltd is a valuable use of the time of that body, because we need to better understand how funds are being used and be reassured that the best possible value for money is being secured. After all, this is a very significant funding mechanism and we need to ensure that, as part of it, the Reclaim Fund Ltd operates to the best and highest of standards. My noble friend Lord Davies is right that we need to focus on issues such as efficiency and effectiveness of spend, so I am very supportive of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am definitely in the camp of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lady Bowles here.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that my understanding of the fund—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is not that this is sort of an endowment that is meant to subsist in perpetuity, essentially dispensing just part of its income to various charities every year. It looks back historically, and says: “Over years we’ve built up this huge block of dormant assets. Let’s do something with it, and quick.” The people receiving it know that they are not getting a future stream of cash. This is a way basically to say: “We’ve got a pool of dormant assets—money that’s not being used. Let’s just get that out into the community.” The way in which the fund is replenished is by the addition of new categories and classes of asset, not a continuous rate of people keeping up the level of forgotten bank accounts. That is an important message to get through.

I look at the retention rate of 40% against cash—it is not even a question of the value—as extreme prudence. This fund was created ahead of the financial crash. It has been through the financial crash and the Covid nightmare and has never needed anything even vaguely close to a 40% retention rate. You have to say that this has been tested in fire. I cannot imagine anybody looking and saying that 40% makes sense. I have no idea where the actuarial number comes from. It would be interesting to see the logic, but I suspect we would raise our eyebrows if we did.

As my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made clear, we are now in a situation in which Reclaim Fund Ltd is a non-departmental public body. On Wednesday, I will speak to an amendment exploring whether any replacement or addition to Reclaim Fund Ltd would continue to have that status. I take the view that it should, but it now has the Government sitting behind it, for goodness’ sake: it is on books, and if it is on books then let us use it. In effect, we have a guarantee. I doubt that we would ever want to see the retention rate drop to the level where we thought that there was any serious probability that it would have to tap into that government guarantee—that is not what we are looking at—but that number and the 40% for cash are very wide apart. We now have a move by the fund into new classes of asset. I dread to think what retention rate it thinks will be necessary for that. We could easily be looking at 80% or 90% retention rates, which are absolutely pointless.

The purpose of the whole dormant asset concept is to take money that is sitting in pots not being used and get it out there where it can do good. I have one question. Since there is a huge pool of cash sitting somewhere under the auspices of Reclaim Fund Ltd, what is happening to it? Where is it sitting, who is getting fees, who is getting commissions, who is being paid to manage it? It may be my inadequacy in trying to read the accounts, since the only ones I have been able to get have been from Companies House, but I cannot work that out. Can the Minister inform us?