Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [Lords]

The costs of salaries, administration and all the rest are too high, irrespective of what the hon. Gentleman says about the BLF. As the costs are high, we must consider whether there is a more efficacious way of distributing the money to the people whom we wish to help. Lord Howard of Rising tabled an amendment in the other House to stop the BLF spending more than 10 per cent. of the funds it receives on administration, and this argument is most definitely worth examining. The national lottery distribution fund's income for 2006-07 was more than £1.2 billion, 17.6 per cent. of which will never find its way to good causes—instead, it is used to fund the quangos that run the lottery. Administration costs for the national lottery distributors totalled £204 million in 2006-07 and the Big Lottery Fund spent the highest total amount—just under £77 million—on its operating costs. That represents more than 12 per cent. of the total value of grants awarded, according to my figures. In comparison, Scope and Children in Need spend 2 per cent. and 4.4 per cent. respectively, so this may not be the best way to proceed. The Big Lottery Fund employs 1,103 members of staff, compared with the Treasury which employs 1,170. The BLF distributes £630 million annually, but the Treasury distributes 500 times that amount, and—I have to say—it grows every day. I support the Bill, but we need to consider whether the mechanism for distribution is the correct way forward. It is a substantial amount of money, which we may have underestimated, and Government spending may become more restricted. Our communities will demonstrate increasing need because of the economic situation, and we must ensure that the money will reach the causes that it is meant to reach in the most efficacious way possible.