Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

We have already cantered around this course several times and each of the jumps is becoming increasingly familiar. With this amendment, the noble Baroness again wants a fully inclusive definition of ““dormancy”” to be put in statute, imposing on the banks all the circumstances in which they will be obliged to recognise that an account is not dormant. However, this is a voluntary scheme. The banks and building societies have given pledges about how they intend it to operate and they have been clear about how they intend to treat dormant accounts. Not being able to contact an account holder can be an indication of dormancy. Being able to contact one indicates the exact opposite—it is clear that it is very unlikely that the account is dormant. I understand that we are to return to these issues on Report. It looks as though we are involved in a clash of principles on how the Bill should look on this important issue. I regret that. The noble Baroness must find herself in a slightly strange position by being involved in an excessive degree of regulation with regard to a private scheme into which these institutions have entered voluntarily, for which they have a code and pledges of conduct that indicate how they intent to operate the scheme; but the noble Baroness wants it in statute. At this stage, the Government are not convinced by those arguments, but no doubt we will return to them and we will have to wait and see what degree of success the noble Baroness has.