We support the amendment, and our names have been attached to it. Fifteen years is not an unreasonable point at which to start, because as the BBA and the noble Baroness have said, one does not want to get to the point where one is transferring a large amount of money to the reclaim fund and a large proportion of it is coming back. That makes unnecessary work and effort, and almost brings the scheme into disrepute. If starting off at 10 years meant that 50 per cent of the money that went into the reclaim fund was being withdrawn, that would be unsatisfactory. The BBA suggests that 15 years will take us towards the 80:20 split, which seems a sensible target, but, as the noble Baroness said, we cannot be sure, and other countries clearly manage with a significantly shorter period than 15 years. The proposal in the amendment initially to stick with 15 years, see how it works and then change it if we find that we can beneficially do so seems to be a sensible way forward.
Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Newby
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 10 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c355GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:27:22 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_433086
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_433086
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_433086