Mr. Jim Connolly:

I disagree that the banks would be eager. Although they might be very eager to get rid of this property, it would be very conditional. I have a genuine concern that the banks would view this property as explosive; I am not sure what adjective to use but that is probably the closest term. To cite an example, imagine we passed legislation and the bank opened the first envelope and it was a will, which the bank would give back to the individual concerned. The will might state that everything be left to that person's dad, who might have given it to him or her in turn. However, because the will had not been produced, that would be no good now; the estate may have gone in ten different directions. The banks might take a view that there is nothing in it for them. It is possible that a decision would be made to destroy the items for fear of what might be unearthed. The idea of an amnesty should be considered. We should recognise that banks will only engage with this if we give them a clear comfort that they are not going to suffer legally as a result and that people cannot go after them for their non-activity. Whatever we do, the banks have to be insulated in some way.

On the currency issue, there is a point at which the Central Bank will exchange currency but if it is guineas, for example, the historical value might be greater than the monetary value. One might get more for them at an auction than through the Central Bank. It is a how long is a piece of string type question.