Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has been profitably engaged over the Recess, or just after it, in discussions with various people with a keen interest in the Bill. I hope he recognised that he was getting a favourable response from all sides. He is right that the government amendment helps matters, as he would see it, to move a little closer to his position and, as we would see it, to make clear the provisions in the Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment is not necessary. I hear what he says about historical accounts. However, Clause 1 applies to historical accounts where a bank or building society transfers to an authorised reclaim fund the balance of a customer’s dormant account, and it is clear that, provided the customer is able to show that he has entitlement over the account as the proper claimant, the money will be paid to him regardless of the fact that so far as concerns the institution there may have been historical issues or changes relating to the account. The account may not be in the original account holder’s name because of the factors identified by the noble Lord, but he is right—he read out the relevant passage—that the banks and building societies are participating in a voluntary scheme, and they are participating on very clear principles. The objective is to ensure that account holders are reunited as far as possible with money that is properly theirs. An account will become dormant only after the 15-year period, subject to the safeguards in the Bill. I recognise the noble Lord’s anxieties, but I do not think that his amendment advances the cause significantly. If a financial institution has a combined historical dormant account for its own operational reasons, that does not prevent a balance owing to a customer either being reclaimed by that customer if he is able to establish entitlement or going into the scheme. I assure the noble Lord that we have considered these points carefully. He made his position clear on some of them at Second Reading. If I thought that there was a smidgen of doubt regarding these accounts, I should respond to him differently. He kindly referred to Amendment No. 42, so he recognises that we are making our position clearer, but I assure him that his amendment is not necessary and would not add to the security that he seeks regarding the accuracy of the definition of dormant accounts.