Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

Again I thank noble Lords for speaking in this debate. Before I respond to the Minister—because I would not want to be ungracious and not respond—I point out that there is something called economy of scale, which means the bigger the institution the greater the benefit to the smaller overhead. In that context, Big should be allowed about 2 per cent because it will give away so much more than the Gatsby Trust. Comment has been made on my 5 per cent being too stringent a limit, but if you already have a structure as Big is claiming, just because you have greater turnover going through that structure does not mean that you have to increase the overheads. No company in the private sector, if it had a larger turnover, would allow the administration to increase exponentially, because if it did it would go bankrupt. When a structure already exists, more money should flow through to the beneficiaries when more money comes in. You do not have to do a great deal more, in that case, to accommodate a much larger sum going through your organisation. That is a very simple point, which should work in almost any organisation in any sphere. That having been said, I do not suppose that the Minister will make an immediate concession so I may have to return to this matter later. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 62 not moved.] Schedule 3 agreed to. Clause 16 [Apportionment of dormant account money]: [Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 not moved.]