Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

So far as concerns the first objective of the scheme—namely, reuniting the owners of the debt with their money—I understand that the Government are proposing to do that. The second objective relates to the part of the dormant accounts which is not claimed. The proposal, if it were included in the second half of the Bill, would be that it would go to charity. That money is in no sense public money; it is owed to the people who deposited it but who happen not to have claimed it. That is equally true of private sector banks; the same principle applies in each case. I think that my noble friend dealt with the argument that, if that happened, the Government would have to borrow more. In any case, it has to be considered not simply in the context of the borrowing requirement but in the context of macroeconomic management. Given the recent cut in interest rates by the Bank of England, which implies that we need to increase economic activity, the effect of going down that road would be either nothing at all or alternatively an increase in the money supply. Again, the background of the cut in interest rates might seem an appropriate way to go ahead. Therefore, I see no reason why the public sector should not be treated in the same way as the private sector. In the absence of any response, I am sure that we shall return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. On Question, whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?