Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, argued his case forcefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, kindly argued my case by representing the two positions in respect of 10 years and 15 years. She was right that the Select Committee was presented with figures by the British Bankers’ Association which showed that 80 per cent of the accounts are generally lost and not reclaimed—20 per cent might still be so. Our judgment on the basis of that is that more resources become available to the scheme the fewer the reclaim cases that have to be handled, for the obvious reason that the costs involved in that exercise are just a straight loss to the scheme. One cannot of course argue with certainty about the change between 15 years and 10 years, but it seems reasonable to judge that, after 10 years, many more accounts would be subject to reclaim, with all the costs involved. Our concern is to ensure that the greatest amount of resources is devoted not to dealing with reclaim and the costs involved in that area, but to the scheme. The noble Baroness presented the case very fairly and with great accuracy. She mentioned that we have looked closely at the Irish scheme, which is working very satisfactorily and is a good model to follow—it is based on a period of 15 years. That is why the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment. We do not think that the shorter definition would generate more assets for distribution in the long term. That is why the 15-year period is in the Bill.