Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 61: 61: Schedule 3, page 21, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (5) The noble Lord said: The amendments relates to the appropriateness of choosing the Big Lottery Fund as the best distributor of dormant account money on the grounds of cost effectiveness. The briefing that the Big Lottery Fund provided before Second Reading was very clear on the amount of experience, infrastructure and expertise that it has in these matters. It proudly displays the fact that it has well established offices in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as having four national committees which it considers appropriate for handling dormant account money. It has an established distribution infrastructure throughout the UK and is familiar with groups in each of the sectors to which the Government intend the money to be directed. That makes it correct in promising economies of scale when it takes over the distribution of dormant account money. It would seem to require almost no addition to the existing structure for this money to be channelled quickly and appropriately to the ultimate beneficiaries, yet the Bill appears to expect a rather different scenario. Clause 25 allows the Big Lottery Fund to defray any amount of money that it sees as necessary for operational costs—not only its own operational costs but also those of the devolved Executives. There appears to be no limit to how high those operational costs may rise. The only safeguard against the waste of that money is in the Big Lottery Fund’s reporting requirements. This ignorance about how much money will be diverted to administration rather than to those in need extends beyond the Bill to the Government, who appear only to have looked at costs of the reclaim fund. A final impact assessment estimates a possible one-off £25,000 for authorisation costs for the reclaim fund, plus subsequent fees and levies to the Financial Ombudsman Service and Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The assessment did not, however, give any indication of what costs will be justified for the Big Lottery Fund. As a result, a suggested limit on how much the Big Lottery Fund can spend on administration has been suggested. The current administrative spending of the Big Lottery Fund appears high, at 12 per cent of the money allocated in grants, although I understand that that is a peak and that, spread over a longer period, the percentage would drop. As a result, a figure of 5 per cent has been drafted to take advantage of the existing set-up and the promised economies of scale. The amendments would also remove the power given to the Big Lottery Fund by the Bill to establish more committees. The Big Lottery Fund has already stated in its brief that it has the structure to handle these funds. If this is so, what need can there be for more committees? It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how much Her Majesty’s Government think the Big Lottery Fund will need to spend on itself before being able to spend the money on young people, and why he seems to disbelieve the Big Lottery Fund when it assures him that it has all the committees and infrastructure necessary to handle the responsibilities that it would acquire under the Bill. I beg to move.