On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that during last Thursday’s business questions a number of hon. Members, myself included, raised the issue of the horror that is going on in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is returning from his welcome visit there. Is there anything that we can do to ensure that he makes a statement, if possible, tomorrow, on whatever support can be given to meet the humanitarian needs of the people of the eastern DRC during this crisis?

I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is not a matter for the Chair. It is up to Ministers to decide whether or not they make a statement, but I am sure that his concerns are on the record.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers, to examine answers to parliamentary questions? We are well used to the fact that in answers to written questions we do not always receive 100 per cent. of the information requested. The attraction of oral questions, and their great advantage, is that we can be critical of the answers that we receive, particularly when they contain certain omissions. May I therefore ask you to examine the replies given to the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and me this afternoon? We sought factual advice on a matter of the gravest importance, but the responses that came from the Front Bench team did not answer our questions. I do not know what description one could apply to those answers, except to say that they were evasive. I had to withdraw my remark, but are we to believe that the word “evasive” is now unparliamentary language?

Unparliamentary language is a bit strong; I am saying that the hon. Gentleman should not direct that term at Ministers, as he knows. What was the term that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) used? Did he say “confused”?

Bewildered—seriously bewildered.

If the hon. Gentleman said that the Minister was bewildered, I would go for that one. For me to examine Ministers’ answers, be they written or oral, would be to add too much to the job description of the Speaker. As a trade unionist, hon. Members would not want me to get any more work than I am doing at the moment, but that is what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is telling me to do.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I and several other Members received letters inviting us to join the cross-party group on balanced migration, but when I applied, I was told by the secretary that I was not allowed to join and that only Back-Bench Members, not including Select Committee Chairmen, could be members of all-party groups. Is that the case? My understanding is that as long as a Member is not a Government member, including a Whip, they cannot be restricted from joining all-party groups.

It is up to the groups to sort out such matters and to decide whether they wish the right hon. Gentleman to be a member, so I shall not interfere in the matter. Rules have been laid down on the number of Members in an all-party group and on whether there should be a balance of officers, which clearly there should.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Report to Parliament—

‘(1) The Treasury shall keep the operation of the dormant accounts arrangements under review.

(2) From time to time the Treasury shall prepare reports to each House of Parliament on the operation of the dormant accounts arrangements.

(3) Within three years of the commencement of this Act, the Treasury shall prepare its first report.

(4) Each report shall include—

(a) a review of the operation, effectiveness and scope of the dormant accounts arrangements; and

(b) any other matters that the Treasury considers to be relevant to the operation of dormant account arrangements.

(5) If the report shows that any of the matters covered by the report are unsatisfactory in any respect, the Treasury shall state—

(a) the improvements that are to be made to the arrangements;

(b) whether such improvements require legislation or could operate on a voluntary basis;

(c) the timescales involved in achieving those improvements; and

(d) the actions that the Treasury propose to take.

(6) In preparing each report, the Treasury shall consult—

(a) those persons who it considers to have relevant knowledge of the operation of the dormant account arrangements; and

(b) such persons as it considers appropriate.

(7) Each report shall be published in such manner as the Treasury shall determine, and shall be laid before each House of Parliament.

(8) The Treasury may make an order removing the obligation to prepare reports in subsection (2) above.

(9) An order made under subsection (8) above may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

When we discussed the matter before us in Committee, a strong view was expressed that the Government ought to return to it at an appropriate time, having reviewed the progress of the Bill and the operation of the reclaim fund. That feeling arose largely after the Government overturned amendments made to the Bill in the other place that introduced triennial reviews in perpetuity. The Committee felt that such a review regime was excessive. However, the general feeling was that there should be a review and that a relevant clause should be inserted into the Bill. At the time, I expressed my view that the Government would naturally want to have a review, but I did not think it appropriate to put it in the Bill. However, having listened carefully to the Committee debate, I undertook to reconsider the matter and to introduce a new clause committing us to a review.

Government new clause 3 will commit us to a comprehensive review set out in legislation and accountable to Parliament, so I hope that it will be recognised that we have listened. We had a very constructive debate in Committee. The new clause is clear and detailed, and commits us to a review of the scheme within three years after it is up and running. The review will cover the effectiveness of the scheme, including industry arrangements for reuniting customers with accounts before they become dormant, industry participation in the scheme and the arrangements for repaying customers whose assets have been transferred to the scheme. The review will be based on consultation with all the relevant parties, and we undertake to present our findings and conclusions in a report to be laid before Parliament.

I am very relieved to hear my hon. Friend say that the review will take place within three years of the scheme being up and running. New clause 3(5) states that the review will take place

“within three years from the date when a reclaim fund is first authorised”.

Does that mean from when the fund starts work, or from when the Bill is passed? What is meant by up and running?

We mean when the reclaim scheme itself is up and running. I think that it is right that there will be a period of time between the passing of the Bill and the setting up of the reclaim fund. It seemed to us—we explored this in Committee—that three years was about the right length of time. In actual fact, it will be slightly less than that, because we would have to report in that period.

Let me turn to the scope of the review. As I have said, it will consider the effectiveness of the legislation. That was a point that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and other Labour Members raised. It will not attempt to review areas outside the legislation, such as the Financial Services Authority’s prudential regulation of the reclaims fund’s, management of money. It is right that FSA regulation is a matter for the FSA. We expect the regulator to make its own assessment of the effectiveness of its regime, too.

New clause 2 does the same thing, in essence, as new clause 3. We naturally prefer our clause and think that new clause 2 is unnecessary as a result. The Government have listened and we have acted as a result of the representations that were made in Committee, and that is why we commend the new clause to the House.

rose—

Before I sit down, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. He was not on the Committee, but I am sure that he takes an active interest in these matters.

I thank the Minister both for giving way and for indulging me, as someone who was not on the Committee but who takes an interest in these matters. I welcome the indications that the Government have opened their mind to the idea of a review. The Minister will be well aware of concerns inside the third sector about the response of banks to this opportunity as a result of economic circumstances. He said that new clause 2 was very similar to new clause 3, but does he not see differences in the scope for more regular reports and in the pressure that the Opposition new clause would place on the Treasury to do more than just report what is happening and to come to the House to suggest improvements?

There are some differences between new clause 3 and new clause 2. I thought it right to let the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) explain why he prefers his clause when he has his go. The Government will want to publish the findings of any review that we undertake and we will want to take forward any recommendations that come from it. Although some of the detailed wording is not in new clause 3, its spirit and intention would be the same, I think, as that of new clause 2, which I shall let the hon. Member for Fareham introduce.

My hon. Friend said that the review would be comprehensive, and he has also said that its recommendations could be acted on. In the knowledge that we will be left with a voluntary scheme, because the Government have committed to such a scheme, will comments about whether the voluntary scheme is working be allowed in extremis as a conclusion of the review? If the review recommended that we should move from a voluntary to a compulsory scheme, would that be one of the recommendations that would then be implemented?

I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. As I said in my opening remarks, the review will cover industry participation in the scheme. If, for some reason, there was little industry participation in the scheme, I would expect the review to conclude that the voluntary scheme was not working. However, as I explained in Committee, I have no reason to believe that there will not be extensive voluntary participation in the scheme. The British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association have both confirmed that their members wish to participate in the scheme. My hon. Friend will find that more than 90 per cent. of retail deposits are potentially committed to participation already. Obviously, we would hope that more banks and building societies with retail deposits would make such a commitment as the Bill is passed and as the reclaim funds are set up. I do not think that the problem that he mentioned will materialise. It would certainly be within the scope of the review to consider industry participation in the scheme.

I am grateful to the Minister for tabling new clause 3, which reflects the commitment that he gave in Committee to return to the issue. A feature of the debates in the House and the other place has been that a review process is needed. In Committee, the Government sought to remove the new clause that was inserted into the Bill on Report in the other place. As a consequence of that decision in Committee, we are considering Government new clause 3 and new clause 2, which I tabled.

Surely common sense would dictate that if further reviews were necessary in the light of new information, the Government would carry them out, so there is no need for new clause 2.

I would rather have the comfort of knowing that the Government were obliged to have another review, rather than leave it to the whim of Treasury Ministers. That is a much more secure basis on which to have the review than to allow one review and for the matter then to be put back on the shelf and forgotten about. The requirement to have ongoing reviews, with the Government able to determine when those reviews should stop through the statutory instrument process in my new clause, would be a far better safeguard for consumers and voluntary groups and would show that the scheme was working effectively.

Surely common sense would dictate that if further reviews are needed they will be held. How many reviews does the hon. Gentleman think we should have?

The answer is that I do not know. We may have to have a review every three years until the end of time, although I suspect that that is not the answer. Equally, I am not certain that just once is the answer either. That is why new clause 2 seeks to place on the statute book the requirement for there to be further reviews until a statutory instrument removes that obligation. My new clause would give people greater certainty about the scrutiny of the process than the Government’s new clause. We are talking about money that belongs to consumers, to our constituents. I want to ensure that the reclaim process works properly and effectively, and when we are talking about potentially £400 million or £500 million, I am not sure that one review is sufficient. If the scheme is deemed to be working well at the end of one review, the Government could bring forward a statutory instrument to remove the obligation to have any future reviews. My suspicion is that one review will not be enough, and there will be a need for a second review. Therefore, rather than let it be at the discretion of the Treasury, it is important that Parliament should determine that there should be the capacity to have regular reviews of this issue.

That is the main area where there is a difference between new clauses 2 and 3. I do not think that new clause 3 provides the comfort and assurance that the voluntary sector and consumers are looking for, and that is why it is deficient. New clause 2 offers much greater protection to the voluntary sector and consumers that the scheme will work in both their interests.

I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Committee, but judging from the speeches of my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), it sounded like a particularly civilised Committee stage. I do not know whether I am right or wrong. The hon. Gentleman feels that new clause 2 is slightly better than the Government’s, but I am not sure whether he will seek to divide the House. There is consensus on the need to review how the legislation operates, and I welcome the common-sense approach taken by my hon. Friend in tabling the new clause. He seems to have accepted the views put forward in Committee by both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats—whom we have yet to hear from, so I hope I am not misquoting them in advance.

My only concern is the need for a degree of independence in the process, given the current climate. I understand why this has to be led by the Treasury—this is an idea that comes from the Treasury and Treasury Ministers—but it is important that the Government allow some degree of independence in the review process. We have not had this process before, but I envisage people being able to make written representations to the Treasury within a time scale enabling the review to take place. I am not sure whether that is what the Minister has in mind, or whether he proposes to elucidate further on how the process works, but it is important that we get as much detail as possible on the record, so that once the review process begins, people feel that it is open and transparent and they can put forward their views about how they can best express their concerns over what is happening.

It feels as though we are dancing on the head of a pin when there are rather more pressing matters facing the banking sector. Nevertheless, that is perhaps inevitable at this stage of the legislative process. I welcome the fact that at all times, in the other place and in Committee in this House, the Bill has broadly commanded cross-party support. That is reflected in the Government’s new clause 3, which I welcome. I am grateful to the Government for listening to the representations that were made in Committee and for seeking, to some extent, to accommodate the concerns that Members from all parties expressed.

With this legislation, there is, after all, a sense that we are entering slightly different territory, and, even though the headline concept is fairly straightforward, we are not certain about how some aspects of it will pan out in practice: whether 15 years, for example, will be an appropriate period for a bank account to be deemed to be dormant; the nature of the reclaim for people who want access to their funds after that 15-year period has elapsed; the mechanisms for distributing the money and the causes that it goes to; and many other features of the legislation besides. So my colleagues and I have always taken the view that some sort of review mechanism would be healthy and in the interests of the Government. The amendments, both in the other place and in this House, were not about Opposition point-scoring to try to put that process into the legislation; they were well-intentioned, and I am pleased that the Minister and his colleagues have sought to accommodate them and seen the wisdom in trying to take that approach.

My party’s view in both Houses has always been that the review should be regular, although in Committee I was, like the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), happy to concede that having a review every three years for—as he put it—“the rest of time” might be somewhat excessive. No doubt, over a period the legislation would settle down and people would feel confident with how it worked in practice.

Our concern now—as I said, we are dancing on the head of a pin somewhat—is whether one review is sufficient or whether subsequent reviews may be required. If they are, should that be expressed in the Bill or should the Government freely come to a conclusion about the issue after they have conducted one review? The margins of difference between us are pretty small, but in so far as the issue matters, I would prefer the legislation to express a mechanism for further reviews.

Having said that, I should say that new clause 2 is rather loosely worded. I can see why Opposition parties would wish to support the new clause because of the broad principle of having more than one review. The Government, however, may be anxious, with their majority, about putting into legislation provision for carrying out reviews “From time to time”, as new clause 2 states. That seems extremely loose; it could mean anything—every 50 years, I suppose. On that basis, the Government could easily either bring forward reviews or completely ignore new clause 2, even if it were passed by the House today, on the basis that having a review a century from now would not be sufficiently frequent or urgent.

In Committee, I made a concession when I had tabled a similar amendment that would have required the Government to consult “those affected” by the legislation. I was criticised by other Committee members, and I conceded that their criticism had some legitimacy and that my wording was too loose for a consultative process. However, new clause 2 would require the Government to consult

“those persons who it considers to have relevant knowledge”.

That strikes me as entirely open to interpretation by those undertaking the review. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who said that if the Government are reviewing their own legislation and are required to consult only those it regards as having “relevant” knowledge, they will pretty much have a free hand to consult whomever they see fit to consult—they may choose to consult only those who are likely to give the answer that they wish to hear.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scope of new clause 3 is rather tighter than that of new clause 2 in respect of the topics that must be included in the review? I shall not read out new clause 3(2), but it seems more onerous on the Treasury in respect of the review than the provisions under new clause 2. New clause 3 seems more desirable in that respect.

I agree. New clause 3 is better worded; it might have been drawn up over a weekend, but new clause 2 must have been rushed through the drafting process much more speedily than that this morning. New clause 3 is more tightly defined, but new clause 2 has provision for subsequent reviews, whereas new clause 3 does not. Those who would prefer more than one review, or at least the option of that, may be tempted to support new clause 2. As I am of the view that the option of more than one review may be desirable, I am more sympathetic to the objectives of new clause 2, although I see that the drafting of new clause 3 has greater merit.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. As he pointed out, this is a case of angels dancing on the head of a pin, given that both new clauses rely on the discretion of the Treasury. New clause 2 says that reports should be prepared “From time to time”; as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that is an incredibly elastic phrase. Under new clause 3, there is nothing to prevent there being more than one report, although there is no provision that there should be more than one. New clause 2 adverts slightly to there being more than one report, but “From time to time” is so elastic that both clauses would leave the issue to the discretion of the Treasury.

That sums up our debate rather well. I hope that Members present do not feel that their time is not being spent sufficiently productively.

I had not realised how much discussion could be had about a single new clause until the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) walked into the Chamber.

The advantage of new clause 2 is that even if the Treasury agreed to have only one review, at least there would be a mechanism for ensuring that we could have a debate, whereas under new clause 3 if the Treasury decides on a whim not to have more than one review, there is no formal mechanism for this House to challenge the Government on that decision.

This conversation is getting more and more arcane. I conceded in my opening remarks that although on the face of it the Bill is quite straightforward, it has a few unusual features. We are navigating waters that have not previously been explored in this country, although similar schemes exist in other countries. There is therefore merit in having a review. Having said that, I think there is merit in periodically reviewing every piece of legislation that the Government introduce to see whether it has had the intended effect.

In new clause 3, the Government make the useful concession of allowing a formal review. I do not want to be mean-spirited, because they have moved on this: they have listened to the concerns that have been expressed and, in a healthily non-partisan manner, sought within the bounds of what they regard as practicable to bring forward proposals that can command broad support. The Opposition parties may wish the Government to commit to further reviews, which would be desirable, but I can see why they would be reluctant to support the rather loosely drafted new clause 2.

What are you going to do?

I do not anticipate the Conservatives pressing new clause 2 to a Division. On the basis that it contains the broad principle of having more than a single review, I would be willing to support the Conservatives, but I suspect that the Government would use their majority to vote down that proposal on the basis that they share my concerns about its loose wording.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), from whom I learned—I had not realised this before—that the Liberal Democrat party is in a position to make concessions. However, I will put that aside for the moment.

As chair of the all-party group on the community and voluntary sector, and one to whom the sector has been talking loudly on this issue, I very much appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Minister has tabled this amendment, as he promised that he would following our debate in Committee. He has been as good as his word. I will, if necessary, follow him into the Lobby to support new clause 3.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and I were part of the awkward squad on the Back Benches in Committee—[Interruption.] I hear gasps of astonishment from my colleagues. As such, let me make one or two other statements about the new clause. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is right about the intention to pursue a voluntary scheme. I am much consoled and helped by his saying in response to my intervention that legislation to address a failing scheme could well be considered at a later date. I hope that that is not necessary. Although he did not say so, I suspect that he is of the opinion that inserting too many get-out clauses may undermine the voluntary scheme, and we certainly do not want to do that. We will have a voluntary scheme as a result of the legislation, and we all want it to work in the interests of the beneficiaries, and of the good standing of the banks.

I too served on the Committee, and it was an extremely enjoyable experience. The sittings were very good natured, and if all Committees were like that, this place would be far happier and more productive.

I am pleased with the direction of travel of the Bill. We are talking about large sums of money being taken from dormant bank accounts and being given to good causes, so it is important that once we establish the body overseeing that transfer of money, it is not out of sight and out of mind. We need to get it set up, and then be able to feel that we have done our job effectively and so move on. I am extremely pleased that in three years’ time we will revisit its performance when we can talk to the various parties involved in its operation to divvy up the cash. The banks and building societies will have their view, and some who have voluntarily signed up will have suggestions on how arrangements can be made even better. It will also give us the opportunity to talk to those who had not signed up to ask how we could persuade them to do so, without cajoling them with the threat of binding legislation. We can also talk to those who have been reunited with their money about their experience. There will be a good opportunity to sit down in three years’ time to establish whether the mechanism we are putting in place today is working and delivering efficiently and effectively.

I hope that new clause 2 will get a further hearing because, if we decide not to have further three-yearly reviews of the performance of the body in Parliament, it is important that there is a debate in Parliament when it can come to a settled view that it is happy with the direction of travel after three years and that it needs to have no further involvement. I prefer our new clause 2 to Government new clause 3 and, while there is no place for partisanship in this debate, I suggest humbly to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) that if he does not like new clause 3, in three years’ time, he might be in a position—as a Minister—to change it and ensure that we have such debates regularly.

I shall cover three points: Treasury discretion, factors covered by any review, and those consulted. Although this is not a fantastically well-attended debate, and I was not on the Committee that examined the Bill, it is an extremely important matter because we are, as several hon. Members have said, talking about taking people’s money. Parliament must be extremely careful when passing any such legislation.

I have given my opinion of Treasury discretion in interventions on the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), who kindly accepted them. I do not believe that new clause 2(2), which begins, “From time to time” makes any difference—it is simply a statement of principle.

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend’s flow, but, as he did not serve on the Committee, perhaps he may be under a misapprehension. People’s money will not be taken—the money will always be there. People who lose contact with their funds will always have access to them—that is one of my reasons for pressing for the measure for the past 10 years. People can get their money. We are talking about using the money that cannot be given back to people for good causes rather than for profits for the banks.

I stand corrected on the nuances—the measure would not take people’s money for ever more. However, it provides for taking people’s money, and they would have to go through a procedure to get it back if they resurfaced after, for example, 20 years.

On Treasury discretion, new clauses 3 and 2 are effectively no different. I prefer new clause 3 because of the factors that it covers. On the review, new clause 3(2) contrasts with new clause 2(4). The subject matter that would be reviewed under Government new clause 3 is rather greater and more intensive than that envisaged under the Opposition’s new clause 2.

Similarly, when one contrasts new clause 3(3) with new clause 2(6), the consultation process envisaged in new clause 3 is rather better than that in new clause 2.

For those reasons, if new clause 3 is pushed to a Division, I will support the Government.

We have had an interesting debate, which shows that there is not a great deal of difference about substance between all hon. Members who contributed. We all believe that a review is necessary, and most of the debate has centred around whether more than one review should take place and whether provision for that should be made in the Bill.

The Government’s position is that a comprehensive review in three years is sufficient to establish whether the scheme is operating effectively and that further requirements for reviews constitute a heavy-handed approach. I understand the view of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who speaks for the Opposition, that new clause 2 specifies further reviews “From time to time”; the wording is fairly loose, as we have discussed. I also appreciate that new clause 2 includes a power to remove subsequent reviews through the affirmative resolution procedure. However, we do not believe that we need that amount of stricture. If the review demanded further consideration by Government, it could—and would—be conducted in the way that my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt) clearly outlined. If a review revealed that we needed to review the scheme still further because sufficient concerns remained, we would do that. Not putting something in statute does not mean that it will not happen.

May I draw the Economic Secretary’s attention to a parallel? The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 included a power to conduct a formal review of the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service in two years of their being established. That measure does not rule out further reviews, but only one review of FOS and the FSA has taken place. It is all very well Ministers saying, “Oh yes, we could have another review”, but, without a legislative requirement, the necessity for keeping the scheme under consideration will soon slip out of the Treasury’s mind. That is why new clause 2 requires further reviews, but also includes the power to remove the requirement, if appropriate. New clause 2 would force the Government to keep the matter on their agenda, whereas new clause 3 would allow it to drop off quickly, after the first review.

Let me assure the House that we would commit to keeping the issue very much on the Government’s agenda, but that would also depend on what the first review concluded. If the first review concluded that the scheme was working well—that there was extensive voluntary participation, that the reclaim fund was operating efficiently and that money was going to the Big Lottery Fund and being spent in exactly the right way—it might also conclude that no further action was necessary other than to keep a watching brief. To commit ourselves to hold a review “from time to time” would not be a good legislative route to pursue.

I should like to pick up some of the points that hon. Members have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made the point in his speech and in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) that we are talking about customers’ money. A great deal of time and effort has already been spent on reuniting customers with their money. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West talked about the procedures that people will need to go through to reclaim their dormant account money, so I ought to explain that doing so should be very simple. It should require no more than taking two forms of identification to one’s bank or building society and saying, “I’d forgotten that I had this money in my account. This is me—please give me the money.” All the wiring that will support subsequent claims on the reclaim fund to reimburse the bank or building society will not be seen by the customer, who will just have to undergo a simple transactional exercise, just as people go their bank or building society and withdraw money that is rightfully theirs.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) made two important points. First, he asked whether there would be an independent element in the review and noted that the clause as drafted requires that the Treasury carry it out. As we have made clear, the review will be undertaken in consultation with industry, consumer groups and the voluntary sector. We see the process as a consensual one. We do not specify in the Bill whether a Treasury official would carry out the review or whether we want to commission independent consultants to do it, but that is a decision that we would want to make at a later stage.

I am most grateful to the Minister, but I hope that he will not have consultants conducting the review. He has put a jolly good new clause before the House and presented a brilliant Bill. Let us not spoil it by bringing in the consultants. If he wants to bring someone in, he should choose some great, towering figure from business or wherever—I do not know what Lord Digby Jones is doing these days—who will have a proper, independent look. Please, please do not go to consultants.

I take my right hon. Friend’s point. My point is that there will be extensive involvement and consultation as part of the review process. Whether the review team will be made up purely of Treasury officials or whether we want an independent person in charge, whoever they might be, is something that we can consider later, when drawing up the review.

My right hon. Friend also discussed the liquidation of BCCI. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that accounts from the former BCCI are not likely to be transferred into the reclaim fund or meet the requirement of dormancy, as defined in the Bill as drafted. Should that not be the case, however, I will endeavour to come back to him. However, the principle is that the scheme is voluntary and the reclaim fund is a private sector organisation. There is discretion on the part of the participating banks and building societies to interpret whether such accounts are dormant. That is one of the flexibilities in the system, which we believe to be one of its strengths.

The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) raised an important issue. Is the Minister saying, in effect, that the liquidator would be able to choose whether the remaining assets, in this case in BCCI, would be available for transfer to the reclaim fund? The liquidator’s duty to maximise the amount available for creditors would seem to suggest that doing so would be wrong and that any moneys remaining in dormant accounts should stay within BCCI and form part of a dividend to be distributed to creditors.

My understanding is that the latter would obtain. There is also the issue of what would happen if money was transferred into the scheme and a bank subsequently became insolvent. In those circumstances, I think that the customer would still be able to reclaim their money, and that would be the right thing to do.

The Minister said that the customer would be able to reclaim the money. Would they reclaim it from the liquidator, or would it go back to the insolvent bank first? I think that that was the point that the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) was making.

If the money has already been transferred to the reclaim fund, even in an insolvency situation, and if a customer is—

Would the Minister prefer to write to me about this?

Let me try to explain it first. If it is still unclear to my right hon. Friend, I will endeavour to write to him. The key principle is that dormant accounts are transferred to a reclaim fund, then transferred on to the Big Lottery for distribution to worthy causes. If, at any time, a customer with a dormant account should realise that their account is dormant and want to get their money, they can go back to the bank or building society. That procedure would pertain in a normal situation, but I would suggest that it would also pertain in an insolvency. The customer would have the same rights as any other retail depositor in an insolvency. If I need to make any further clarification on that, I will ask leave of the House to do so.

In conclusion, I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between new clauses 2 and 3. The principal difference is the question whether there should be a review from time to time, or whether there should be just one review, followed by the Government making a commitment that, if we felt further reviews were necessary, we would endeavour to ensure that they took place. I hope that the hon. Member for Fareham will not feel that he needs to press new clause 2 to a vote, but if he does, I will invite my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to oppose it, and to support the Government’s new clause 3.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As the Bill has commanded cross-party support throughout its progress, it might, in keeping with that spirit, be worth my drawing attention before I discuss the substance of the new clause to the distinguished list of Members from all parties who are signatories to it. They include the deputy leader of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), and the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall), whose report on unclaimed assets recommended that a reserve power to create a register be included in the Government’s proposals, which is precisely the purpose of the new clause.

The hon. Gentleman was referring to the hon. Members who were signatories to the new clause. The amendment paper lists six names, so I am curious as to why it also says that the total number of signatories is seven. Who is the seventh?

I do not know; there are so many wise Members in this House, of all different parties, that the list could include hundreds. I can only speculate that those who have not signed have not been sufficiently attentive to notice that the new clause was there to be signed, because anyone who had had the opportunity to sign it would have taken that chance.

The new clause was signed not only by the widely respected deputy leader of my party, but by hon. Members from all three main parties in this House, including the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire. The Committee’s report on unclaimed assets recommended that a reserve power to create a register be included in the Government’s proposals. The right hon. Gentleman was also primary sponsor of early-day motion 1581, which I, too, have signed, along with other hon. and right hon. Members. It calls for a reserve power to create a register if reunification efforts prove insufficient. That is the nub of the matter, and I shall address it in due course.

The new clause was also signed by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), chairman of the all-party group on cancer, and by two Conservatives, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who I believe used to be a vice-chairman of that group, and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who was a member of our Public Bill Committee. It was also signed by the Member who has perhaps devoted more time and effort to considering dormant bank accounts than any other—the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones). He, too, has expressed support for a reserve power for a register, and did so on Second Reading and in Committee.

In summary, unlike the other new clauses that we have discussed this afternoon, this measure is supported by Members from all three parties; it is doubtless supported by Members from other parties too. That is because the intentions behind it are entirely laudable, and it would help the House if I were to provide a small amount of background. We are concerned with the ability of charities to access legacies, which are a vital strand of the income of charitable organisations. The Building Societies Association and the British Bankers Association have estimated that up to £500 million is sitting in dormant accounts, but that estimate is disputed—there are a range of views as to how much money will be realised as and when this Bill becomes law. Some think that the sum may be as high as £5 billion, so we are talking about a large sum.

It is worth setting out a few facts for the House to give context on unclaimed funds and the impact on the charitable sector. One in seven people leave legacy gifts to charity, and those average 5 per cent. of their total estate. The Institute of Fundraising estimates that legacies accounted for 36.3 per cent.—more than a third—of the voluntary income received by charities in 2007, and that that totalled £1.6 billion.

Let us consider the impact that those legacies have on specific well-known charities. Some 46 per cent., or almost half, of the British Heart Foundation’s voluntary income came from legacies last year, as did 33 per cent. of Cancer Research UK’s voluntary income, totalling £135 million. This is not controversial; hon. Members on both sides of the House understand how important it is for the charitable sector that legacies can be realised, because they form a vital part of their funding. This country has an extremely healthy charitable sector. Many charities in Europe caring and catering for people afflicted by illness or other circumstances look enviously at the British charitable sector, because it raises more money, and employs and deploys more people, for charitable causes than those in many comparable countries. We are very well served by our charitable sector, and it is important to ensure that it can access the funds that it requires and that were intended for it by people in their legacies.

In the view of many in the charitable sector, charities cannot adequately locate legacies left in dormant accounts. In that regard, everyone welcomes the industry’s main initiative: the website www.mylostaccount.org.uk, which allows any person or charity to search online using basic information. That facility has been useful to many people, but nevertheless a feeling remains that it is not sufficient and that some charities will be unable to access the money intended for them.

I am listening very closely to the hon. Gentleman; I understand his logic, but why does the new clause not refer to executors or administrators of estates? It is they who would be seeking to fulfil a bequest made, for example, by a deceased person in their will to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, of which I am a member. In such a situation, the RSPCA would have a vested interest in accessing any money due to it from the estate and in ensuring, if it could, that the estate had sufficient funds. However, surely that is primarily the duty of the executor or administrator. Should the register not advert to them rather than to registered charities?

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about where the emphasis should lie. If the new clause does not cater for that point sufficiently, it is because it was inspired by representations from many charities keen for progress to be made.

In Committee, I tabled an amendment to create a reserve power allowing a register of dormant accounts to be set up in the triennial report, if the scheme’s reuniting practices were found to be inadequate, but the Government were reluctant to accept that reporting requirement. However, Government new clause 3 introduced a mechanism allowing for a one-off report after three years to consider how the legislation has worked out. New clause 1 is particularly appropriate given the adoption of Government new clause 3. If the report were to find that the ability to reunite charitable organisations with legacies intended for them is inadequate, new clause 1 would be all the more valuable.

In the Lords, an amendment to introduce a reserve power to create a register was narrowly defeated—this takes me to the crux of new clause 1. It had been argued that it was desirable for individuals to be able to access a register to find moneys that were rightfully theirs. Concerns were expressed, although representations were made that those concerns were unfounded, that a database that was drawn so widely and accessed by a large number of people might cause problems. New clause 1 has been drawn much more tightly to take account of those concerns.

I shall not detain the House for long, but I wanted to point out why I put my name to the new clause. One of the main tenets of the Bill is to encourage people to get their money back—to get as much as of this money as possible back to its original owners and to those who are entitled to it. They include those whose wills have lost contact with their bank accounts and so on. It should ensure that those who should have the money have the money. One of the best ways to do that, as has been seen throughout the world in all the other many countries that have such legislation, is to have a centralised register. That is so much easier than having to tout data around all the different banks and building societies.

If there is a central register that people know about, the process is much easier. I know that we have mylostaccount.org.uk, but I do not see why the Government should set their face against the new clause, which would be an added benefit for people who have lost contact with their money. It would also mean that not many more data were flying around. At the moment, those data have to be put into whatever other process has to be gone through, and sent around to various different organisations. There cannot be so much risk of data falling into the wrong hands. I wish that the Minister would reconsider the issue at this late stage and try to accept the new clause.

If I have any concern about the Bill, this is one of the areas that I am most concerned about. We recognise in the House that charities derive a significant amount of their income from legacies, and the fact is that the Bill does not make adequate provision to ensure that that is adequately reflected when the money in dormant building society accounts is divvied up.

I have added my name to the new clause almost in a probing way, because I would very much like the Government to accept that part of the large sums of money that we are talking about could make a significant difference to the funding of charities in this country. If 5 per cent. of legacies goes to charities, it would not be unreasonable for the Bill to reflect that by having 5 per cent. of the dormant bank and building society accounts fund set aside to be distributed to the charitable sector. I appreciate that, in going to the Big Lottery Fund, the money will go to good causes or to a good cause, but that is a very specific allocation.

I have listened to the arguments of a coalition of charities, and I am very sensitive and alive to them. In particular, the money that will be set aside from dormant bank and building society accounts could make a huge difference to less well-funded charities. Many popular charities do not struggle to secure funding and charitable giving, but a number of very worthy charities find it very difficult to raise funds, because they do not have the infrastructure or do not strike the same chord with the public.

I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by going through a range of the charities that struggle for funds, but I point out that mental health charities, for example, find it very difficult to raise funds. I go to many sporting events and see sporting teams wearing pink for breast cancer, which is an honourable and noble thing to do, but I see very few sporting teams wearing something to help to raise funds for the mentally ill, and I should like more of them to do so.

If I could prevail on the Government, I would say, “Please look at this.” We are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. Would it not be possible to go away, rethink and ask officials, “Couldn’t we set aside 5 per cent. of the fund in a mechanism that would enable it to be distributed to the charitable sector?” That would find favour among many charities and among many of our constituents as well.

I support the concept of a register, for some of the reasons set out. We could be doing many things to tighten data protection. For example, Wolverhampton city council has no port for a memory stick on many of its computers, so there is no chance of a memory stick with information on it going missing, because a memory stick cannot be plugged in.

We are focusing on charities in the new clause. Although that focus is extremely worth while—I very much support what has been said about charities—it is too narrow, because individuals who should inherit money from dormant bank accounts could not do so, because of the regulations envisaged in the new clause. Charities could do so, as one class of beneficiary, but not individuals. That takes us on to a little background on what happens on someone’s death, which some hon. Members might not be aware of—I am; I was a solicitor before I entered the House.

For shorthand, I will refer to executors, rather than referring in the legal way to executors and executrices and administrators and administratices, because that confuses people. In everyday terms, when someone dies without a will, administrators are appointed to deal with the estate. If someone dies with a will, executors are appointed. However, there will be a grant of letters of administration on intestacy or a grant of probate if someone dies with a valid will. However, for the sake of argument, let us simplify and say that those who deal with the estate are executors.

The executors will distribute the money of which they are aware in accordance with the deceased’s wishes if there is a will and in accordance with the law of intestacy if there is no will. If someone dies intestate and there is no beneficiary at all, the estate goes bona vacantia, which is referred to in the explanatory notes and means that the Crown gets it.

If someone dies with a will and leaves a bequest to a charity in it, the charity should get the money. However, there may not be enough money in the estate, or it may be that the charity is the residuary beneficiary. For example, the will might say, “I leave all my furniture to my kids, and everything else I’ve got goes to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.” The RSPCA is then the residuary beneficiary, and gets everything that is left over after the furniture has gone to the kids. That residuary sum will be higher if there is a dormant bank account that can be brought back in to swell the estate. The RSPCA, in the example that I gave, would then get more.

The difficulty with the wording of new clause 1, worthy as it is, is that it focuses only on charities. Let us say that someone dies and leaves several bequests in their will, which is quite common; often they leave a specific bequest of a named sum to a charity, and the residuary beneficiaries are their children. In that situation, the residuary beneficiaries may not get all that they are entitled to if they did not know that their deceased parent had a dormant bank account that had been swept into the reclaim fund, but that could come out of it if they ever found out about the account.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for imparting his professional knowledge to the House. Could he go a little further and say whether there is any legal obligation imposed on executors and administrators to conduct a reasonably thorough search for less obvious assets, such as dormant accounts, that the deceased may have left?

My hon. Friend has an accountancy background, not a legal background, but he is absolutely right to use the term, “a reasonably thorough search”. Executors have to take reasonable steps; they do not have to search to the ends of the earth to find assets that might be brought into the estate and distributed in accordance with the law on intestacy, or the wishes of the deceased.

That brings me neatly to my point about the way in which the new clause is framed. It does not do what I—and, I suspect, those who tabled it—would like it to do. It focuses on charity, for obvious reasons, but there is a simpler way of doing things. I preface my remarks by saying that I think that there should be a register. There is a body that hands out grants of probate. One applies to it, shows it that there is a valid will, and that one is the executor and so on, and one gets a nice, stamped document back with “grant of probate” on the top. It has the name of the executor on it, and the name of the deceased, whose estate the executor is going to sort out. I cannot remember the body’s name, because it is a quarter of a century since I did such work. When that body—I think that it is a court of some sort—acceded to a request for a grant of probate and sent out that grant of probate, it could check a register to see whether the deceased had any dormant bank accounts. It could then let the executors know. If there was a dormant bank account, the executor could get the money back from the reclaim fund and use it to increase the value of the estate. Those who were entitled to distribution from that estate, be they individuals or charities, would then get more money.

Let us have a register, but it would be much simpler if the court that hands out grants of probate could simply check that register—that would, to some extent, deal with data protection issues—and inform the executors that it knew that there was a dormant bank account, because it had found the name on the register. That would be a much simpler way of doing things. It would benefit charities, which is what those who tabled the new clause admirably wish to do, and benefit others.

New clause 1 clearly shows that there has been some movement on the issue since we debated it in Committee. I am not entirely clear from the speech given by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) how he expects the register to work in practice. For example, it is not clear whether we are talking about a voluntary register, which would go with the grain of the scheme envisaged in the Bill, or a compulsory register, to which banks and building societies would have to sign up. That is an important distinction to draw. As I mentioned, the scheme in the Bill is voluntary; banks and building societies have the right to opt into it. All the arrangements are predicated on that basis. I am not entirely clear whether the hon. Gentleman would require banks and building societies to put this information on a register and therefore convert the scheme from a voluntary to a compulsory scheme. He may wish to intervene to clarify that.

New clause 1 proposes giving the Government a power to establish a central register and to put in place specific arrangements regarding charitable legacies. The Government share several of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban). I was disappointed that he did not want to accept new clause 3, but it seems that, on new clause 1, we are thinking along similar lines. We debated the issues at length in Committee in the light of a similar amendment, and I am happy to set out our strong belief in the importance of effective reuniting arrangements and our commitment to ensuring a scheme that is effective, transparent and, above all, fair for consumers, and our legitimate concerns about the implications of the new clause for consumers and for human rights.

I recognise the position of some representatives of the charitable sector, including the Unclaimed Assets Charity Coalition, and I welcome its contribution to the debate and pay tribute to its valuable work. All parts of the House share a commitment to ensuring that charities get money that is rightfully theirs. Naturally, I welcome all constructive suggestions about how industry reuniting arrangements might be further improved, and I should welcome discussions between the British Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association and the charities to see what more can be done.

I know that this issue was gone over in Committee and in another place, but is the Minister aware that charities are concerned that, in effect, they will be cut out of the loop and lose 5 per cent.—potentially—of the legacies in the dormant bank and building society account fund? Would it not be better for 5 per cent. of the fund to be earmarked for distribution to charities? Is it not something that the Minister might consider at this late stage?

I heard the hon. Gentleman make that suggestion in his contribution, and if he feels that strongly about it, I am surprised that he has not tabled an appropriate amendment for discussion today.

Naturally, we welcome all constructive suggestions about how relationships can be improved, and my understanding of the charities movement is that, yes, it has some concerns. It wants to continue putting pressure on banks and building societies to do all they can to ensure that there are simpler arrangements so that the movement can get its rightful money. However, I must stress that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) pointed out, the issue is not just about charities. The key question is, how do we ensure that the rightful owners of dormant accounts are reunited with their property so that only genuinely dormant accounts are transferred to the scheme? The proposals are right and fair for customers, because, after all, it is their money. Whether it involves the estates of deceased persons, or individuals who have simply forgotten where they have put their money, both have similar rights, and we must continue to focus on reuniting them with the property that is rightly theirs.

The Government welcome the commitment of the banks and building societies to a major reunification exercise in the run-up to the scheme becoming operational, and, in particular, we welcome the launch by the British Bankers Association, the Building Societies Association and National Savings & Investments of the “mylostaccount” website in January, to which Members have already referred. Almost 190,000 people have already used this free cross-industry service to reunite themselves with tens of millions of pounds. We welcome the commitment of individual institutions to institution-by-institution efforts to reunite. We have seen the fruits of that through high-profile efforts by HBOS, Lloyds TSB, HSBC and Nationwide.

My strong advice to individuals who think that they might have a bank, building society or national savings account or premium bonds of which they have lost track is that they should go to www.mylostaccount.org.uk. The service is free; people tap in their basic information—name and current and previous addresses—and can make multiple searches for free. If people are owed money from such accounts, they can find where it is and get access to it. They need not go to commercial fee-charging services for the privilege; the process is simple.

The “mylostaccount” website already allows executors, nominated representatives and even beneficiaries of wills to conduct searches for lost accounts. Executors can ensure that anyone or any institution, including charities, due legacy income from moneys in dormant accounts receives their entitlement. I would expect an executor, as part of the reasonable steps that they should take, to go to the minimal trouble of visiting the website, feeding in basic information and checking whether any money of which they are not aware is due to the relevant heirs and successors. That would be an eminently reasonable and proportionate step for executors to take.

The current arrangements are working and will continue to be effective in allowing people to be reunited with their money. We will, of course, keep the matter under review; the review clause on which we voted a few moments ago will include a review of the effectiveness of reuniting arrangements, so the issue will not be forgotten. However, I should like to repeat the concerns that I set out in Committee about a register and the power to introduce one. First, it is important to recognise that financial institutions must respect the confidentiality of the information that they hold about their customers. Transferring such information to a central source would in effect require banks to breach that confidentiality; it is difficult to see how that would be compatible with the framework of current UK law on confidential information and data protection, and it would raise human rights issues. I am not saying that it would be impossible to do that but, as the hon. Member for Fareham suggested, it would raise significant issues about the overall design of the scheme. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) said that other countries had similar schemes, but obviously he is aware that other countries have compulsory schemes, whereas we are proposing a voluntary scheme.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman has just walked in; if he sits down and is patient, I might give way to him in a moment.

Let me just make this basic point: other countries have compulsory schemes and their registration schemes are part of that. If we had a registration scheme, a number of issues would be raised. How would the register be enforced and monitored? What would be the legal penalties for non-compliance? Those major issues would have to be dealt with through additional primary legislation, so we could not take such a step lightly. Furthermore, significant amounts of data would be moving to a different system. At the moment, individuals can interrogate the current banking system, with all its firewalls for confidentiality, through the “mylostaccount” website. Having a registration scheme would mean that all the personal information of the depositors of accounts worth about £400 million to £500 million would have to be transferred to a registrar who would operate a new scheme, and that would raise serious data protection issues. As the hon. Member for Fareham suggested, it would also raise significant cost issues by placing a significant administrative burden on the scheme.

Fundamentally, I do not believe that we as a Government should be taking the reserve powers suggested by the hon. Member for Taunton, which are not necessary. Nor are they desirable, because they would challenge the fundamentally voluntary nature of the scheme, raise serious data protection and confidentiality issues and, in the view of some people, raise concerns about the potential for fraud. Including these powers in legislation would not be a good use of parliamentary time. They would have significant implications for future primary legislation, because they could not be created by this provision alone but would require further clauses to be inserted into this Bill or, probably, an extensive consultation period and a completely new additional Bill. For those reasons, I invite hon. Members to oppose new clause 1.

I wish to follow up on a few points from our short debate on new clause 1.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) asked who were the magnificent seven who put their names to the new clause. I will run through them: my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the right hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall), and the hon. Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). I have obviously missed out myself as an important signatory, but I notice from the amendment paper that it is in fact the hon. Member for Bromsgrove who is missing. We are both no doubt pleased to have our names attached, but that is a matter for the record, and I will turn to the more substantial points.

Genuine and reasonable concerns have been raised about the confidentiality of the information about account holders. Charities would search against the register using their name, date of birth and last known address, so any match would allow them only to contact the financial institution to undertake a claim in the normal fashion. They would not be giving out reams of information about the bank account holder in the way that some Members fear. I reiterate that this has been tried and tested in other countries, where those fears have not been borne out.

I was asked whether the scheme would be voluntary. I suppose that, going with the grain of the Bill as a whole, that is likely to be the case. However, it would, to some extent, be voluntary in name only, because most of the institutions, with regard to the Bill as a whole, feel a degree of compulsion to be involved with the scheme, even if it is a moral rather than a legislative compulsion. I remind Members that the first line of the new clause says:

“The Treasury may make regulations as are necessary for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a register of dormant account funds”.

It would not compel anybody to do anything, but it would provide that facility.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a register may well be complicated, and that if the Government do not like that complication, then why not, instead of giving the Big Lottery Fund 100 per cent. of the moneys contained in the dormant bank or building society account held by a third party, give it 95 per cent. and earmark 5 per cent. for distribution to charities?

That is an interesting alternative suggestion. Although it is not contained in the new clause, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman shares my concern about trying to ensure that the money intended for charities reaches them to the maximum degree.

I was asked whether this provision would be additional and complementary to the website or would replace it. I think that it could and should be complementary.

Points were raised about the cost. There would be a cost but, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne implied, there is currently a cost to the charities, who fear that they may not be united with money that was intended for them. Of course there would be an administrative burden if we were to set up a register, but one would hope that the total amount of money realised for charities would exceed the cost of administering the scheme many times over.

In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman said that there were compulsory registers in Ireland and Canada. Can he give us an indication of the cost of running those registers, by way of comparison?

No, because I do not have that information available. Ireland, for example, has a far smaller population than ours—it is about 5, 6 or 7 per cent. the size of that of the UK—so there would be difficulties in making a direct comparison. There may be economies of scale in running such a scheme in a country with a much larger population, such as our own. The parallels are not absolute in that the scheme in the new clause is voluntary. My earlier point was that Canadian and Irish residents are similarly concerned about data being used appropriately, but as far as I am aware, that process has not proven to be a great problem in those countries.

In conclusion, under the House’s decision to adopt new clause 3, a provision has been made for a review. It seems appropriate to those in my party that the Treasury take on that power. It may have a register—it is under no obligation to do so, but that would be a reasonable part of any review that the Treasury can decide to have, thanks to the earlier vote. We are seeking to complement the process, and go in the same direction as the Government. Overwhelmingly, we are putting forward the voice of the charitable sector, which has made many representations to us, and is broadly supportive of the new clause. On that basis, I ask hon. Members to support it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—