Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

The noble Baroness is fertile in producing some interesting illustrations of how dormancy may not be defined in the Bill. This is another interesting illustration, which I will probably need to reflect on, as will my officials. However, she will recognise that banks are not totally unfamiliar with the complexities that can arise from joint accounts, some of which need multiple signatures. A submission by an individual who is a joint account holder may not as defined in the Bill protect the account from going into dormancy, but it is a relevant transaction. If an account holder writes to the bank, it is certainly a communication with the bank that falls outside the definition of dormancy for which we are searching, which is the bank having an understanding that there is no person with interest—I am using interest in the general sense—in the account at all. I emphasise to the noble Baroness that I can see how complex things can become, but the claim upon the moneys in the account still obtains, even if the resources go to the reclaim fund. The individual who has been able to make no progress within a certain timeframe may be able to make progress later because of changed circumstances, and claims upon the reclaim fund can be entertained at any stage. I recognise the issue that the noble Baroness raised, but if we tried to cover every eventuality in the definition of dormancy—we have been fairly productive this afternoon, but I have not the slightest doubt that many other illustrations could be brought to our attention—the Bill would have very extensive categorisations about dormancy. We think that because dormancy merely relates to the transfer of resources, not the ending of entitlement, we can defend the definition in the Bill.