Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

Where the noble Baroness’s amendment would not be otiose is in that information that the reclaim fund requires to settle a claim when the bank has not done so. In a contested claim where the individual has applied to the bank but has not, so far as they are concerned, got a proper decision and the bank says, ““That is because we have decided that the account is dormant and resources have been transferred to the reclaim fund””, the reclaim fund would potentially, if the individual were persistent, then entertain a representation from the individual on the justice of their claim. The fund would then have to get the necessary information from the bank. How confidential that information would be is the noble Baroness’s proper concern. I was seeking to suggest to the Committee that the reason the amendment was otiose is that we have proper data protection regulation in place to guarantee the security of that information. I repeat that the position the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, identified—that it is the banks and building societies that are the main actors in respect of the identification of claims and the response to them—persists. That is the concept under which we are operating, and therefore the amount of information in the hands of the reclaim fund is necessarily very limited.