Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 34: 34: Clause 9, page 6, line 11, leave out ““an account that”” and insert ““any account maintained by a bank or building society since the inception of such a bank or building society whether or not the account is still maintained in the name of the original depositor, and which”” The noble Lord said: We return to this Bill and all its works, having had the chance to reflect during Christmas and new year. It was helpful that last evening when I went, unusually for me, to a reception that the mutuals put on with the Building Societies Association in Portcullis House and then to a reception held by the British Bankers’ Association. It was useful to meet one or two people who had an interest in this Bill. This Amendment No. 34 brings us back to the crunch of what an account is. The amendment states that an account is, "““any account maintained by a bank or building society since the inception””—" so there is no doubt— "““of such a bank or building society whether or not an account is still maintained in the name of the original depositor””." What we do not know is what has happened over the years. If we take a view that the banks and building societies were inaugurated some 150 or 200 years ago, the idea of dormancy and what might happen to dormant accounts has been interesting people for perhaps only 10, 15 or 20 years, but did not exercise minds in earlier times. Therefore it would not surprise me if a bank or building society in earlier times had said, ““Well, it looks as if these people are not going to turn up. We have had a bit of a bad year. We will write this money off to profit””. Indeed, in terms of a bank, it could have been subsumed in that which has ultimately been paid as a dividend. We do not know that and I do not know whether anyone does. However, it is important to make it clear that we are not talking about something that has happened only in the past year or two, but that if these sums have been built up over many years they are still in play as far as this Bill is concerned in terms of dormancy and being available for distribution in the way that is intended. Since we last met, it is interesting that Amendment No. 42, in the Minister’s name, states that, "““an account is to be treated as remaining open where it is closed otherwise than on … instructions””." He is getting somewhere near to me, except that I think that my amendment is more clear and straightforward. Speaking is sometimes effective by putting these matters on record. The British Bankers’ Association put out a few sheets the other day on which it states that the banks have said all along that they will participate voluntarily, provided that, "““the scheme was based on a definition that focused on genuinely lost monies””." I think that my amendment is helpful by talking about definition; but, even more helpfully, the BBA states: "““It includes accounts dating back to when the financial institution first opened and includes accounts originated in banks and building societies that have since been subsumed in today’s bank and building societies””." That is fine and okay as far as authors are concerned, but let us be clear and let us have it in the legislation. I beg to move.