Mr. Kenneth Jordan:

Under the Dormant Accounts Act, in the case of bank accounts, the period of dormancy is 15 years. The figure varies, but, on average, approximately €50 million comes into the fund each year, while another €25 million is reclaimed. Even with a period of dormancy of 15 years for bank accounts, there is a huge turnaround of people who are discovering they have a bank account. The answer I give on the issue is that it should definitely be longer than 15 years if somebody has lost touch with his or her bank account. For assets, it would have to be longer.

The other question is what is the primary objective of the proposed legislation. If it is about the cultural and heritage elements, the Dormant Accounts Act is not the place to achieve it. In addition, the idea of a windfall does not necessarily hold true in the case of the Dormant Accounts Act because the State must keep the asset to pay the person or his or her estate in perpetuity. It is not a windfall but more like almost a loan reserve, if that makes sense. I am not sure if I am explaining it well. The cash sits there. The NTMA keeps a reserve to ensure it can pay people who come for their money. In reality, it is an alternative source of loaned money, rather than a windfall.

They are the two points that come to mind. What is the key objective or the common good? Having heard the two other inputs, I do not believe the key benefit is a boost to the Dormant Accounts Fund. Again, there would have to be a rough idea of the value of assets. There is significant money in the fund, while there are significant inflows from bank accounts. The relative scale of what the inflows might be gives one an impression of what the cost-benefit would be.