Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I am far from clear that the Minister understands where I am coming from on this matter. We have received a lot of paperwork recently, and are still receiving it, on the subject of ““reuniting””, and it is right and proper that that reuniting endeavour takes place, but three things can happen. First, money can be reunited. Secondly, money that goes to the reclaim fund can ultimately go to a good cause. However, I am concerned with the third area, whereby money does not go to the reclaim fund because it was written off to a suspense account by the bank in 1950 or was written off to profit in 1935 or whatever. If we are talking about a level playing field, we have to be absolutely clear about what is in the Bill. I could understand if the Minister said that anything before 1918 or 1945 or whatever date was being written off. That is why I said in the first place that every account that has ever existed should be included. If it is really dormant and cannot be united, it should get through to the reclaim fund. I am concerned that there should not be a situation where a bank or building society says, ““We wrote it all off in the old days. We have had some since about 1970, but anything before that has been forgotten and we are not bothering about it””. That is the problem. If there is a level playing field, there must be that clarity. That is why we need an amendment of this nature. We will have to look at this matter another day and it may be that we can. This is an issue, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 35 not moved.] On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?