Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I am grateful to both noble Lords, but rather more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on this occasion because he pointed out the difficulty in establishing an arbitrary cost figure. The measurement that should be expected of the distributor is that it is a proven, accountable and efficient operation. Big has been going for only three years and has had its role transformed in the past 18 months or so. It takes time for a body to bed down. Big has been enjoined to bear down on costs. We are all united in the fact that we want the maximum resources available to the fund to be distributed and not spent on administration. Across its present activities, Big spends about 10 per cent of its income on operating costs. That is not a bad operating figure compared with other funding organisations, although no other body has a similar range. Big has had a difficult two years in bearing down upon costs. That is an important consideration for all of us. Five per cent on expenses, which is the burden of Amendment No. 103, is an arbitrary concept. I do not often ask the noble Lord to add to his contributions, which are always strongly expressed, but perhaps in his summing up he could demonstrate to us another nationwide distributing organisation of the same complexity as Big which would accept a cost limit of 5 per cent, which is what he suggests here. It will, of course, depend on the resources that come in. Obviously operating costs will decline the more resources come in. I therefore resist the concept of an arbitrary costs limit on expenses. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that Big organises its work through committees. It could not possibly operate its present range of activities on a single board system. It operates committees for its work and it is inherent in the Bill that this is a separate funding operation which will need a separate distribution process. I give way to the noble Lord.