Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I hear what the noble Lord says but we are also drawing on the experience and expertise that Big has developed over the four or so years of its operation. I am trying to think of a private organisation that accepts a straightforward limitation on its administration costs. In fact, if one thinks about it, the more such an organisation gets into difficulty, potentially the more the administration costs will rise. However, under the concept envisaged in the noble Lord’s amendment, it will be stuck with fixed costs, however successful or unsuccessful it is. It is important to bear down on administration costs. There is not the slightest doubt that the costs of the Big Lottery Fund, and indeed all lottery distribution, are borne down on because it is money that is to be distributed. I re-emphasise that it is not government money. Lottery money belongs to those who have contributed to the lottery because they want to win a prize, but they also want to contribute to an organisation that supports good causes. Therefore, of course we want to bear down on costs, but an arbitrary fixed limit, as envisaged in these amendments, scarcely stands up to examination.