DORMANT BANK BALANCES AND UNCLAIMED SECURITIES. (Hansard, 28 June 1910)

§ Mr. BOTTOMLEY

asked for leave to introduce a Bill to compel bankers to make periodical returns of all dormant balances and unclaimed securities in their hands. The apology I offer to the House in asking permission to intrude for a few moments on its attention at this stage is the fact that for some years past, on the eve of the introduction of the Budget, I have ventured to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer certain sources of revenue which were available to him without in any way involving a fiscal revolution, and the reason why I ask permission to deal with this proposal in this way is this, that it of necessity involves special legislation, and therefore could not be included in the provisions of the Finance Bill without adopting the system of "tacking," against which everybody knows the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have sternly set their faces. The object of this Bill, in a sentence, is this: To call upon the bankers of the United Kingdom to disclose at a date, which I suggest as in January next and at periodical dates, the amounts of dormant balances and unclaimed securities in their hands, these dormant balances and unclaimed securities being denned as balances with which the owners have in no way operated for a period of six years, and securities which have in no way been claimed; and, having disclosed them, it is proposed that at a subsequent date they should hand them over to a department or public trustee, to be held, first of all, in trust for the rightful owners, if they happen to turn up, and in the meantime for the benefit of the State. The theory of this Bill is this, that England, having been the home of bankers, the industry of banking having been carried on in this country for several centuries, it follows as a matter of course, quite apart from the question of ascertain-able fact, that in the course of that long period vast sums of money and vast securities have accumulated in the hands of bankers, the owners of which have been lost sight of, and the benefit of which is being held, therefore, by those bankers as their own property, with no effort being made to find, on the contrary every difficulty being placed in the way of finding, the rightful owner. On two previous occasions when I had the privilege of introducing this Bill I have been opposed by Gentlemen who had had 842 special experience of banking, and in each case they assumed most erroneously that every banker holds such property as trustee for the owner as soon as ever the owner becomes known. I have not the opportunity under this procedure of dealing with these hon. Gentlemen, and I only desire to bring before the House this remarkable fact, that according to the law of the country as it stands to-day—the learned Solicitor-General (Sir Rufus Isaacs) is present and can correct me if I am wrong—a law based upon certain obsolete decisions, briefly the position is that after the expiration of six years, every penny and every security in the hands of bankers which has not been claimed become the bankers' property. That, I submit, is a state of things which this House ought not to permit to exist. I have in my possession, open to the examination, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he cares to see them, 150 cases in which vast sums of money are now being held by bankers to which they have no moral claim whatever. I have already brought to the notice of the House the case of an old lady, which is well authenticated, though the hon. Member for Montgomery threw some doubt upon it last year. The old lady had £28,000 lodged in a joint-stock bank, and, being of eccentric habits, she regularly went to the bank year after year, and, having counted the notes and satisfied herself that the whole sum was there, turned and said to the manager, "Good morning," and nothing more was seen of her for twelve months. That went on for many years; but for the last seven years the old lady has not been seen, and the £28,000 is still lying in the bank, and except for the sources of information which I personally have no one would know of its existence. I have mentioned the tragical case which appeals to every Member of the House—that of the mother of one of the officers of the submarine which went down under such sad circumstances a few years ago. She assured me that before the boy died—and she gave evidence of it —he had put £400 or £500 in the bank as provision for her old age. She tramped London and the country and circularised the banks, asking them for information with regard to this £400 or £500. Without exception the reply was always the same— that they answered no questions and could not give any information. I may mention, among others, the case of one private bank which was recently removed to other premises. In taking away some old deed boxes deeds and securities of great value 843 fell upon the ground. I could give evidence to the House that balances are passed on from year to year in private banks and remain in the possession of those banks. I could go on enumerating case after case until the House would weary. That there are cases in the experience of every Member is beyond question.

Only a day or two ago I had a letter from a gentleman who was once a Member of this House (Mr. Pritchard Morgan), in which he says that the Government would reap a fine harvest from these sums. He gives two instances which occurred to him personally. Fourteen years ago he went to Australia on business, where he had an account with the branch of a leading bank. Two or three years ago he received a letter stating that the branch had closed, and that a certain balance to his credit had been removed to another branch. He went to the head office in London and asked for the amount, and they claimed 1 per cent, for expenses, though the bank had had the interest on his money for many years. In 1900, he adds, he lost the seat which he had held some years previously. In that constituency he had opened an account with the local bank, and during the last election he returned there, and proceeded to open an account with the same bank for the expenses of the contest. He was informed that there was a considerable balance standing to his credit. He jocularly remarked, "If I had not made up my mind to contest the seat, probably I would never have heard of it." The bank official simply said, "Probably not."

This law, which I have explained again and again, prevails in most of our Colonies and in most civilised countries. In Australia, in the very first year the law was in operation, upwards of £100,000 was handed over. I have here a volume containing last year's Return for Canada. The hon. Member for Montgomery looks with curiosity on that book, which contains nearly a thousand pages. Unclaimed balances in the banks of countries like Canada are not of such volume as is the case with old established banks in London and the United Kingdom. I was rather impelled to bring this matter forward today, because in a recent Report of the Public Accounts Committee to this House I find this paragraph under the heading "Mafeking Siege Notes":— Included in the amount of the balances unsupported by adequate accounts is a sum of £4,590, recovered in the following exceptional circumstances from the 844 Standard Bank of South Africa. During the siege of Mafeking the supply of cash in the town ran short, and the Commanding Officer created a paper currency redeemable at the Mafeking branch of the bank on the restoration of civil law, of which notes and coupons to the value of £5,228 were issued. But after the relief of the town the notes and coupons were extensively bought as mementoes of the siege, and the paper presented for payment only amounted to £638, leaving a balance of £4,590 outstanding. Although civil law was resumed in 1902, no steps were taken to obtain an account of the actual sums paid by the bank until January, 1908, when the Paymaster brought the matter to the notice of the chief accountant of the South African Command, and negotiations were opened which resulted in the bank repaying the whole amount of the outstanding currencies. I do say to the House, in all seriousness, that this is a matter which really ought to receive attention. It is not a party matter. The Bill was read a first time on the two previous occasions by majorities of something like three or four to one, representing all sections of the House. I ask Members to give the First Reading to the Bill with the sole object, having obtained facilities for the Second Reading, of securing some Committee to inquire into the whole subject, and I believe that the result of such an inquiry would be a great surprise to the country and a veritable godsend to the Exchequer.