Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 39: 39: Clause 10, page 6, line 34, at end insert ““, or ( ) the bank or building society in question was under instructions from the holder of the account to pay any interest accruing on the account to— (i) a person other than the holder of the account, or (ii) another account whether or not in the name of the holder of the account.”” The noble Baroness said: Staying with the theme of what constitutes a dormant account, I move Amendment No. 39, which would add a new paragraph to Clause 10(2). It probes an issue that has been raised with us by an individual. The amendment focuses on instructions to pay interest and has the effect of an account not being treated as dormant if a bank is instructed to pay interest to someone other than the holder of the account or to another account, whether or not that account is in the account holder’s name. The bank account would simply have been left. No transactions or instructions would be made, with interest mandated to be paid somewhere else. That could be part of an arrangement to provide an income to someone other than the account holder. All kinds of circumstances where that might happen could arise. Clause 10(1) refers to transactions, "““carried out in relation to … or on the instructions of the holder of the account””." The question arises whether the payment of interest to another account, in whatever name, or the payment to someone other than the account holder, constitutes a transaction in relation to the account within the terms of subsection (1). I suggest to the Minister that interest that does not touch the account might be calculated in relation to the account, but is not a transaction in relation to it, because the account was never intended to have transactions. It was just sitting there to provide an income stream for another person or another account. I hope that the Minister will explain how such accounts are treated under Clause 10. I beg to move.