Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I would like to speak to this amendment, because I referred to it earlier when I moved the first amendment of the day. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned ““getting under the skin”” of the customer and it is possible to get under the skin of the bank. I want to speak as if I am a trustee for the good causes, because that is another skin that we can get under. It is absolutely crucial that we get this clear at this stage. We keep talking about named accounts that look as though no one has touched them for a while. I am talking about balances that have not been touched for very many years and the bank or building society has already said, ““They have gone; they have vanished; we will put the account in suspense””. If it is in suspense, then it is in suspense—it does not have a name on it any more. Or the bank may have said, ““We will take it for profit””. If the institution is a mutual, the account becomes part of accumulated funds. If it is a bank, it has gone to real profit and could even be paid out as dividends. My concern about this is a day-one principle for the sums that we are talking about. Once the Bill becomes law there should be a flood of money from accounts that have not been touched for donkey’s years. Then, every year or two, people think, ““The 15-year process has happened for those accounts, perhaps we should look at these others””. It is crucial that we have a real definition. I was hoping that that would be of help and we get it absolutely clear that we are talking about sums of money that are nowhere near having a name on them in accounts that are in suspense, accumulated funds or profit-and-loss accounts. They used to be account-holders’ moneys that have not been claimed for many, many years. I hope that that issue can be bottomed.