Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 41: 41: Clause 10, page 6, line 34, at end insert ““, or ( ) the bank or building society in question had at any time been instructed by the holder of the account not to treat the account as dormant.”” The noble Baroness said: I move Amendment No. 41 not with any great hope of it being accepted but because it raises an issue that I think should be debated. The amendment adds another reason for an account not to be treated as dormant under Clause 10(2). It says that an account is not to be treated as dormant if, "““the bank or building society in question had at any time been instructed by the holder of the account not to treat the account as dormant””." We know that the scheme for dormant accounts set out in the Bill is voluntary in the sense that it is entirely open to the banks or building societies whether to take part. However, this voluntarism is confined to the banks and building societies, which do not own the dormant banks accounts—indeed, those accounts are the liabilities of the banks and not their assets. The assets—the money represented by the accounts—are owned by the account holders, but the Bill does not allow an account holder to say that he does not want his money to be swept into the reclaim fund for onward transmission to the Big Lottery Fund. It seems to me that it is a very basic property right for an account holder to say that he does not want his account to be part of this scheme. Not all accounts will be in the names of UK citizens or even UK residents. Some will not share the Government’s enthusiasm for their pet social and environmental schemes of youth, financial exclusion or social investment. There will be others who simply will not like the idea that the banks can hand over their accounts to someone over whom they have no control or influence. I contend that it does not matter what motivates an individual to opt out of the dormant accounts scheme; he should not be deprived of his right to say what can be done with his money as a matter of principle. Of course, I do not intend the amendment to result in the banks changing their standard terms and conditions so that the small print has all customers opting out of the dormant account scheme, as that would plainly fly in the face of the agreement thrashed out between the Treasury and the banks and building societies. If the banks and building societies went down that route they would unwind the consensus on which this Bill is apparently built and would deserve whatever government action was decided to be taken in response. But I do not believe that, in practice, banks would seek to exploit an exemption of that nature, as provided for by my amendment. It is a principled amendment to assert the property rights of an account holder. I beg to move.