Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

The Minister said that the definition in Clause 10 would cover the situation, but I put to him that it would not because it would not have been a transaction carried out in relation to the account—the receiving of a communication by one of a pair who could give instructions would not be a transaction—and it would not be within subsection (2) because it would not be under instruction from the holder not to communicate because, by definition, the holder, being two people jointly, cannot agree on instructions to be given. I put it to the Minister that it is not within that. The Minister’s fallback is that they can get their money back in due course. I do not think that is an adequate answer because people do not want to see their moneys temporarily confiscated so that they have to go through the reclaim procedure for accounts that they know about. What is missing from the Bill is something that would go beyond this rule base because, as we explored earlier, it does not require the banks to take account of other knowledge, which could come in a number of different ways, that puts them on notice that the account is not regarded by the account holder, or somebody who could be the account holder, as dormant. What will happen is that computer programs will be written to sweep all these accounts into the reclaim fund. There will not be individual judgments on individual accounts; a series of algorithms will produce the answer. Individuals who have spoken to me are rather aggrieved that an algorithm could sweep an account that has not been touched for a number of years for the reasons that I explained into the reclaim fund. The current definition is flawed to the extent that it will allow an algorithm approach without requiring the bank to take account of knowledge of any other facts. I may well want to return to this issue at the next stage, unless the Minister wants to say anything else at this stage.