Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

The subject matter of this amendment overlaps with our Amendment No. 69. If I may, it would be expeditious to speak to our amendment at this point. The Bill is very prescriptive in some respects and rather less so than we would like in others. Clause 16(1) is a classic example of this. It simply says that a certain proportion of the money to England, a certain proportion to Wales, a certain proportion to Scotland and the rest to Northern Ireland. Very helpfully, it concludes that the total amount distributed must add up to 100 per cent, for which we are extremely grateful to the drafters of the legislation. The basis on which this allocation will be made, and on which the prescribed percentages will be decided upon, is unclear. Is it to be on the basis of the Barnett formula, which is the starting point for much government expenditure? I very much hope that it is not. We have argued, as has the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that the Barnett formula has had its time and that general government expenditure should be divided between the nations and regions of the UK on the basis of need. Our amendment, in a sense, substitutes ““poverty”” for ““need””, but given that the Bill allows complete leeway as to how the money should be divided between the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom, we need greater clarity on the Government’s intentions. Our proposal is that poverty is a good basic indicator against which the percentages could be determined. We would be grateful if the Minister could explain how this is proposed to be done, or whether, as in many other parts of the Bill, the Government have not yet formed a view.