On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard on my wireless this morning references to a statement in the House by the Deputy Prime Minister about the Marchioness tragedy. It was obvious that a number of people expected the matter to be brought to the House, and revealed to the House. Can you give us any indication, Mr. Speaker, of whether you have been asked to make provision for a statement by a Minister? It would be helpful to know that at this stage.

There will be a statement at 11 am. Let us now return to the National Lottery (Amendment) Bill.

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

The Bill seeks to give the National Lotteries Charities Board an additional power to consider and, indeed, award grants towards the endowment of charities under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, as amended in 1998.

The board was established as a non-departmental public body. The Act specifies the share of the national lottery to be received, and regulates the appointment of committees for grant-making. It gives the Secretary of State power to give directions relating to the matters to be taken into account in grant-making, and the conditions on which the money is to be distributed. This, then, is a permissive power, and the board thus has an opportunity to make the grants. The provision raises policy issues, but they would be for the board to consider, both in principle and at the point at which one of its grant-making committees received an application for funds for endowment of a charity.

The Bill has the support of all party members in Norfolk, some of whom are present. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). I also convey the apologies of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), who has supported a charity that I am about to mention to the extent of working his socks off to secure money for it. I pay tribute to him for that: he survived. I doubt whether he will survive a general election, however, as his seat is very vulnerable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) has supported the Bill as well, and others have shown great interest.

Let me begin by explaining how I came to be interested in the issue, and why I think that the 1993 Act needs to be adapted. With the support of the Eastern Daily Press, the "We Care" appeal 2000 was set up in Norfolk to endow the Norfolk millennium trust for carers. It aimed to raise £1 million in cash to establish the trust—which is registered as a charity—and enable it to become long-lasting, and to provide financial help for an estimated 130,000 unpaid carers in the county. Its purpose was to respond to the identified need of such carers. It sought to help with the purchase of equipment, and to improve the quality of life for carers.

I need not describe the emotional, financial and physical burden endured by carers, or the loneliness, frustration and sheer exhaustion involved.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the valuable work done by 6 million carers in this country, but does he think that £1 million would be sufficient? He will know of the economic difficulties now being encountered: the country is going rapidly from boom to bust. Would £1 million be enough to generate the same amount of income, given the likelihood of a fall in interest rates aimed at stimulating the economy during the period of bust?

That is a reasonable question, but I think that the sums needed to change the lives of many carers are quite small. I believe that, as long as investments were made properly, with good investment policy and advice, the money generated by an endowment fund over a long period would be enough to deal with many problems.

Investments are not made only by charities, however. The Government also invest money to help carers, and there is a genuine partnership between different organisations. The money does not supplement, but goes along with, other sources of finance. I doubt that we shall ever have enough money to deal with all the problems of carers, but by gosh, the Bill would go a long way towards doing so.

At a meeting that I had with the General Medical Council this week, we had a long debate about the withholding of support and help for terminally ill patients. It was pointed out—surprisingly—that carers would have a crucial role in determining some of the matters that exercise the minds of members of the GMC and the British Medical Association. Carers see, in the front line, the support that they receive from the medical services. In a world in which people are becoming litigious, some of the evidence that they muster and the experience that they gain might be important to the fashioning of the changes that the GMC and the BMA realise are needed. The media have now taken up the issue as well. Carers play an essential role and we must ensure that they are recognised not only as individuals helping others who are having problems but as professionals.

With the help of the Eastern Daily Press, the public in Norfolk have responded magnificently. Many events have been held, such as jumble sales and, as I said, walks round the county of Norfolk. Hon. Members distinguished themselves—or did not distinguish themselves—at a concert entitled "Aristosquits". The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk told a lusty tale or two about his time in this place. I am really hoping that the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and I will be able to perform at a concert this June, when we shall sing,

"We are public guardians bold yet cheery".

I believe my hon. Friend is up for that, although we may have to adapt the words to reflect the political times. In short, many hon. Members have been involved in the concerts, where our enjoyment of inter-party discipline is magnificent.

As I said, some hon. Members in the Chamber have played prominent roles in the effort, and the money raised has been invested in an endowment fund. The money generated by that fund is given to carers. Yesterday's Eastern Daily Press carries the headline, "Justice for Jemima", with the "We Care" appeal symbol underneath. It states that

"Smiling Jemima Hutson's courage and compassion will be revealed to the House of Commons tomorrow".

I am now doing just that.

Jemima Hutson received £100 from the Norfolk millennium trust for carers, which, as I said, was established with £500,000. With that money, she is buying a tumble dryer which, according to the article,

"means no more damp clothes hanging about their Norwich home aggravating Jemima and her brother and sister's asthma while they get on with their remarkable job of caring for their disabled mother.

Every day Jemima, nine, and Jessica, 14, along with four-year-old JB cook meals for the family, bathe their mother and help look after her."

What reason could hon. Members have for entering politics other than to change things for people like Jemima? The support, help and interest in other humans shown by people like Jemima is amazing. If we can help such efforts by providing lottery money, we should do it.

Money is not being provided for every soft case that is presented; there are a fair number of rejections. A serious analysis is made of whether money will really help and support caring efforts. As I said, however, the sums required to change people's lives for the better are often quite small.

The charity has trustees who decide on grants. Paddy Seligman OBE is the appeal's chairman and was a leading light in Norfolk in establishing it. The other trustees are Barry Capon CBE, DL; John Alston CBE, DL, who is known to many hon. Members; Ann Mullender, from the charity Crossroads; and Dr. Jenny Blyth, a consultant in palliative care at the Priscilla Bacon lodge who looks after terminal cancer cases; Peter Furnivall, an eminent local solicitor who has helped me very much with the wording of my Bill; and Alastair Fish, a prominent local accountant. They provide a wide spectrum of excellence and professionalism in assessing applications, and they do a sterling job.

Letters have appeared in many publications describing the professionalism and work done by carers. However, I am sure that many hon. Members are already aware of that work from their surgeries and their daily work. I note that Mr. Speaker has also shown an interest in the functions performed and the role played by carers. The appeal is doing very prominent and important work.

The appeal is also working with other organisations. My Bill has received support from National Schizophrenia Fellowship; west Norfolk carers project; the Families' House organisation, in Norwich, which is concerned with the adoption of young people; and the Norfolk Eating Disorders Association. They represent a wide spectrum of good activities. The appeal committee takes no expenses, and administrative help has been provided free by Mills & Reeve, Norwich solicitors and by the Norfolk health authority. Additionally, the National Lottery Charities Board millennium festival has given £23,000 to cover the appeal's running costs.

I need not point out to right hon. and hon. Members that the number of carers is almost certain to increase, largely because of the increase in the elderly population. I should like to quote from a letter to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport from the Eastern Daily Press editor, Peter Franzen, who was fully supported by his deputy editor, James Ruddy—both of whom have worked day and night on publicity for the appeal in the Eastern Daily Press and on television in the East Anglian region. Peter Franzen writes:

"We appreciate that the Government has in place a highly developed carer support strategy with many facets. Indeed carers are one of the few groups with national standing under the Carers' Recognition and Services Act 1995 and qualify for a specific carer's grant. Their rights and powers will be further expanded next April when the Carers and Disabled Children's Act becomes law.

There are a number of other Government moves geared to supporting the complex array of carers who now exist in our society. The King's Fund initiative is widening the net to further categories, including ethnic minority carers, and the DfEE Challenge Fund is targeting work life balance, giving carers support in, for example, balancing work with caring.

Ultimately, in a country where people are living longer and health advances are restoring the lives of many more of the sick and injured, the Government has carefully developed a partnership strategy in caring which recognises that the statutory services cannot cope fully with delivering all possible needs.

Our appeal is already delivering the social inclusion 'medicine' which the Government has prescribed to ensure carers do not miss out completely on mainstream life. In cost-effective, yet significant, ways we are providing labour-saving and other methods of support to help carers to regain some of their normal life".

I should like to set the appeal's aims against those of the National Lottery Charities Board. Page 1 of the recent annual report from the National Lottery Charities Board talks of

"funding groups which help those at greatest disadvantage to improve the quality of life …measures which will have long-term advantages rather than address short term issues",

and of the fact that

"money wisely distributed can make a real improvement to the quality of life for vulnerable people who have little support and have significant needs".

The board has an impressive record, which I shall not cite in detail as it is described in the report for hon. Members to peruse at their leisure. In one year, it has provided £450 million to 11,347 charities and voluntary groups. That is an impressive record and highlights the fact that administering the board's functions must be an awesome feat. I congratulate it on its fine work.

Page 36 of the annual report states:

"The 1998 National Lottery Act gave us the power to delegate our grant making to other organisations. This is an exciting opportunity which could enable grants to be awarded by more specialised or more local groups. We are currently consulting with the sector to see which organisations may be suitable and willing to take on these demanding responsibilities."

There is obviously a case for the "We Care" appeal to be included among those organisations. The "We Care" appeal objective meets the stated funding criteria of the National Lottery Charities Board. The main grant programme criteria include the following statement:

"We aim to improve the quality of life of people and communities experiencing disadvantage and the effects of poverty. Projects we expect to fund include health projects and projects to support carers".

The mission statement of the "We Care" appeal closely, if not exactly, fits those criteria. Its mission is to relieve the elderly, infirm, sick or disabled in Norfolk by providing financial aid and practical support to carers, either individually or through carers' groups.

It is not unprecedented for an endowment fund to be set up with major financial support from the national lottery. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did just that when, in 1998, he revised the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, providing expanded powers and allowing the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts to be funded by a one-off pay-out of £200 million from the national lottery. That was the first endowment fund of its type to be supported in that manner. The fund derives an income of about £10 million from the trust, and, like NESTA, it was established with the objectives of supporting and promoting "talent, innovation and creativity" in those spheres.

The fund was conceived as an endowment because the Government decided that it should be different from established lottery distribution bodies—which rely on fixed shares of funds held within the national lottery distribution fund that are issued with policy directives on distribution determined by the Secretary of State.

NESTA trustees have considerable scope to establish strategy and policy for an organisation that can be innovative and bold, take risks, act with flair and adapt quickly if necessary. Having endowment status gives it a sense of continuity and freedom from rigid external interference. It can also look ahead. Surely with an increase in the elderly population, carers in the voluntary sector will also increase in number and continue to perform their excellent task for many years to come.

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that there is at least one possible down side to his proposals? In order to raise the very large amount of money that would be required for such an endowment to be viable and to produce the necessary income stream, one would have to deny my many other good causes that money in the short term. So at the very least some difficult choices will have to be made, and in order to achieve long-term benefits many short-term sacrifices will potentially have to be made.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct to say that choices and assessments will have to be made to decide who will gain the money and so on. However, my proposals will not deny any organisation the right to apply for those grants, however big or small the need might be. The only factor is the distribution of the money and the competition for it. That will be determined by the trustees and the boards and the information that they receive about different charities—such as how well they are organised and the expertise of their trustees. There will always be such choices and they apply to these issues too.

NESTA is free from regular cash rounds or agreements with any Government Department. The programmes have to be in line with statutory mission statements. NESTA has a board and has tax status similar to a charity's. Its trustees are appointed by the Secretary of State, who has powers to issue directions to the endowment in respect of its financial conduct. The similarity to the "We Care" appeal is obvious. Both organisations target areas, groups and individuals where there is a need for support.

It is interesting that out of eight national lottery distributing bodies, only the charities board is prevented outright from granting endowments, although others are given guidelines that they should carefully consider such requests.

So what precisely is the difficulty, and how should we overcome it? There is an ambiguous clause in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Section 38 (1) states:

"The National Lottery Charities Board may make out of any money it receives grants for meeting the expenditure of charities."

The guidelines to other boards state that they may "fund or assist in funding" projects. Clearly, an endowment fund is not regarded as expenditure of a charity.

I have not been able to unearth the reasons for this anomaly, but I understand that when laws are drawn up, consideration of every event and every detail cannot always be scrutinised and we learn by operating Acts over a period of time. The result is that the board can only make specific grants over a specific period of time. The "We Care" appeal sets out to give moneys to various projects without a fixed time dimension.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said:

"The National Lottery will now be able to respond more effectively to the needs of every community. I had two very single aims in reforming the lottery—to ensure people have confidence in the way it is run and to ensure that the money it raises is allocated fairly and goes where it is needed."

As we have discussed the matter, the hon. Gentleman knows our view on the Bill and I commend him for his support for the charity that he has espoused. As he is bringing his remarks to a conclusion, can he tell us how far the appeal has progressed in trying to raise £1 million and what sum of money it might apply for in grant from the National Lottery Charities Board were the Bill to be enacted?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. So far the appeal has accrued something like £550,000. Of course it would love to get the rest through a lottery grant. However, it continues to receive support and help and in a month or three months' time after Members of Parliament strut their stuff at local concerts and so on, who knows how much more will come in? [Interruption.] Our side will certainly be there. An all-Labour all singing, all dancing Aristosquits concert is a wonderful idea. I think that the appeal will be asking for at least £200,000 to spin out over some time.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that my proposed changes appeared to be sensible. The amendments would allow endowment-funded charities to apply. We believe that endowments must be restricted to charities rather than extended to similar benevolent or philanthropic institutions. That is because English law does not recognise purpose trusts unless they are also charities and therefore does not recognise gifts to such institutions unless they are used for charitable purposes. Grants to such institutions or charitable projects for immediate expenditure are still acceptable, as countenanced by the 1993 Act, so they are not excluded, but the retention of grants by such bodies for purposes which are not desirable is a problem.

Let me define "charitable", "benevolent" and "philanthropic" as they have been addressed in court cases. There are differences between charitable and benevolent. I have really enjoyed getting into the legal processes and definitions. Thank goodness I never wanted to be a lawyer, and I would never let any of my children be lawyers. There is an absolute mish-mash of definition and counter-definition.

"Picarda", a famous legal publication, contains the following definition:

"The word 'benevolent' is a word of somewhat shadowy meaning. One thing, however, is certain. There is judicial unanimity that `benevolent' goes beyond what is charitable in law. It is not synonymous with 'charitable'. For that reason, as noted elsewhere, gifts for charitable or benevolent purposes have failed as going beyond what is exclusively charitable, even though gifts for `charitable and benevolent purposes' have been upheld."

I am absolutely certain that hon. Members understood that perfectly.

On the subject of "benevolent", I have one little reservation about the hon. Gentleman's Bill, although I broadly support it. He will be aware that there are private benevolent organisations. In his own area, Bonds of Norwich, which is part of the John Lewis Partnership, gives to charity. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if the Bill is enacted. organisations such as the John Lewis Partnership may no longer feel the need to give, as they will assume that there is already a structure in place to replace the good works that they do?

I should stress that there is nothing to prevent organisations from applying for lottery money. They are not restricted by the provisions of the 1993 Act. That will not change, but the problem will persist. I shall address the hon. Gentleman's point later in my speech.

I return to the standard legal definitions which demonstrate the nonsense of how the whole process operates:

"In Income Tax Comrs v. Pemsel (1891), Lord Bramwell, attempting to draw the distinction between charitable and benevolent, said: 'I think there is some fund for providing oysters at one of the Inns of Court for the Benchers. This, however benevolent, would hardly be called charitable'. It may, however, be hyperbole to classify such a purpose as benevolent. And his example of a trust to provide a band of music on a village green is probably charitable rather than benevolent.

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines the word in relation to persons as connoting of a kindly disposition, charitable, generous, and its Latin origins indicate a notion of well wishing. An appeal to send a particular child abroad for a medical operation has been instanced as directed to a benevolent rather than a charitable end."

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members are now much more aware of the definitions. I dare not penetrate into the definitions of philanthropy as they would confuse us even more at this stage.

Section 38 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 requires adaptation. I have had advice from Government lawyers and from Mr. Peter Furnivall of Mill & Reeve solicitors in Norwich, which has been most welcome. Section 44 of the Act describes charitable expenditure as expenditure by charities or similar bodies, as compared, for instance, with investment of moneys by charities in order to produce an income stream for future expenditure. Section 22(3)(d) restricts the use of lottery money to charitable expenditure. If we want money to go to charities such as the "We Care" appeal, the definition of charitable expenditure will have to be changed or the terms of section 22 will have to be extended.

The Bill adds a new subsection (1)(b) to section 38. Perhaps there was no need to repeat the whole section, but the key aspect is that the additional words extend grants to endowment, which means a gift that can be used for expenditure or for retention as capital. The Charities Act 1993 says that a permanent endowment is money held by a charity subject to the restriction that it must be expended for the purposes of the charity and that only the income from it may be so expended, and the capital must be retained permanently. That is clearly defined in the Clergy Orphan Corporation case of 1894 and reaffirmed in the Charities Act 1993. The case of Smith v. Kerr of 1899 cross-refers to the Charitable Uses Act 1601.

We have amended the definition of charitable expenditure, so there is no need to make any change at all to the wording of section 22. Charitable expenditure will no longer mean expenditure by charitable or similar bodies only but will extend to expenditure on grants to such bodies. That is an essential change, meaning that endowment can be retained as capital rather than spent from year to year. Indeed, if the endowment is defined as permanent, it cannot be spent at all, and must be retained for as long as the charity exists in its present form.

There is a difference between an endowment fund and a permanent endowment fund. When Opposition Members want to endow universities, they had better get the type of endowment right.

This is a complex area, but I have had good legal advice and choices have been made. I want to give the charities board more flexibility. The change may open the floodgates to requests for endowments from a host of charities, but it is already open to all charities or benevolent or philanthropic institutions to apply to the board for money for immediate charitable expenditure. The legal change that I seek makes no difference to that. The board already has complete discretion about what grants to make to which bodies and under what terms. It may be asked how charities are to be dissolved and whether the trustees have legal responsibilities.

The Charity Commission document CC3 defines the trustees' duties very carefully. It refers to trustees' fundraising responsibilities and their powers in respect of investments, property, accounts and so on. If a charity is permanently endowed and the governing document contains no power of dissolution, it cannot usefully be wound up, but if the trustees are satisfied that it no longer serves a useful purpose—the one for which it was established, and which is now fulfilled by other means— the commissioners can make a scheme to amalgamate it with other charities. The trustees are under a duty to apply to the commission for a scheme to change the purposes of the charity. The five commissioners are appointed by the Home Secretary and are answerable to the courts, the Home Secretary and Parliament.

The Bill gives the charities board more flexibility in supporting both short-term and long-term projects. People will be aware of the problems for carers. As they increase in number, in line with our increasing elderly population, their organisations will need the support of lottery money. People feel that the lottery money is theirs and they want to see it coming their way. It is our duty to find ways of overcoming the restrictions. I am sure that the measure will be popular and will help to support this amazing group of people who do so much for our country. Eventually, it will also open up help to other groups that want to retain their presence in our communities in the long term, providing much-needed support and help.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. We thought that he had made his last speech, but I look forward to his making a further speech in support of the Bill. He has done a marvellous job for Norfolk.

I commend the Bill to the House and hope that it will find support.

I thank the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for his very kind remarks. He is right, in that when I spoke in the Budget debate, I said that, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), it might be my last speech in the House. I am delighted that it was not. Indeed, there may be many more—I do not know when the election will be.

The Bill is of great significance to Norfolk, and indeed the whole country. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his success in the ballot, and I am delighted that he has chosen this subject. I agree with everything that he said, apart from two points. In his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), he suggested that his seat might be in jeopardy. I assure him that that is not the case. My hon. Friend has done remarkable work for his constituency, which will be well rewarded by an increased majority.

The other point on which I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman was when he said that he hoped to be performing in one of the appeal's charitable concerts in the summer. I do not know when the election will be, but I am sure that he is hoping that it will be way beyond the summer, because I am sure that he will not want to participate as an ex-Member. However this is very much a bipartisan occasion, so I will not continue on that tack.

I strongly support the appeal, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk would have been here had it not been for their constituency duties. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the latter's remarkable sponsored walk efforts. I, too, have supported the appeal by action as well as words. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and I took part in what used to be called a variety concert, in Wolterton hall in north Norfolk last summer, and we raised more than £1,000. In my constituency, in a new restaurant in part of an old agricultural building owned by my constituent Mr. Ben du Brow—a remarkable example of farm diversification—my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and I did a cabaret last November. She and I have participated in the palace of varieties in St. John's Smith square on three occasions, on two of which we did a mind-reading act. On those occasions we were very much limited in time, because of the number of acts, but I am glad to say that in the cabaret for the Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal, we were able to demonstrate our mind-reading skills at greater length and managed to raise £11,400. I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest for participating in that. I want to pay a warm tribute to Mrs. Paddy Seligman for her remarkable enthusiasm and leadership and to theEastern Daily Press for its constant support, which has been so important.

What is interesting about the nearly £550,000 that has been raised is that it is the result of a variety of fund-raising events. In addition to the event in which I participated, which raised a substantial sum, countless small events have taken place all over the county. They have involved all age groups, including many young people and school children. That shows how remarkably good the appeal and cause are.

Norfolk has an above average proportion of elderly people, because it is an attractive place to which to retire. Many people are dependent on carers. The hon. Gentleman referred to my good friend and constituent, Mrs. Ann Mullender, who for many years has done a splendid job in the caring sector. She has often talked to me about it. All Hallows hospital in my constituency provides respite care for a large number of people and many constituents have told me how that seven-days respite care is enormously appreciated. The service has been under threat in recent years and I hope that the appeal will enable All Hallows to continue to provide it.

I am in no doubt about the importance of the appeal and of its significance to many people in Norfolk. The hon. Gentleman mentioned small improvements, such as a dishwashing machine, which can make a remarkable difference to the lives of the people he described. Respite care is another example. The East Norfolk health authority recently commissioned social research for its intermediate services review. Support for carers was one of the top five priorities for action identified by all the audiences that took part.

The hon. Gentleman has considered the subject in detail; indeed, his legal research was most interesting and enables me to avoid asking the Minister one or two questions, for which I am sure she is grateful. However, I remain puzzled by some definitions in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 and why a contribution from a charity to an appeal does not count as expenditure for charities. Other charitable bodies are able to provide contributions for endowment funds. It must be an historical anomaly. I have been told that the reason that the National Lottery Charities Board cannot make grants to endowment trusts has been lost in the mists of time. We are talking about not a principle or precedent, but an exception. I did not speak in earlier debates, so I do not understand why that exception has been made.

On NESTA, the House has accepted the principle for a substantial endowment fund as part of the activity of lottery charities. The Bill to establish that got through the House quickly and, I think, with all-party support. That might be of interest to the hon. Gentleman. We are dealing with an anomaly and there are clear precedents for what the Bill is attempting to achieve.

Endowment funds are common in charitable activities. John Lewis has been mentioned. Many charitable trusts have endowment funds for the good reason that they are enabled over many years to go on making a considerable contribution for the purposes for which they were established and not just in the early years or in the first year. It is true that current interest rates mean that not a great deal of income is coming from the funds, but that is not an argument against the principle because at other times the returns will be much higher. Many trusts have been set up with such funds, so they obviously fulfil an important purpose.

Does my right hon. Friend concede that when the yield from an endowment fund is low—like now, and rates could get even lower—it might bias the difficult decision on the use of such funds towards using the money for the immediate benefit of a much larger number of causes?

That is an interesting issue. I have been involved in discussions about whether, in the case of educational endowment funds, there should be a relaxation of the restrictions on income, especially in a period of high total returns because of the behaviour of the stock market or substantial capital gains. I accept that there are other issues to consider. There will be fluctuations in interest rates, but the continuation of the funds is more important than the concern that my right hon. Friend raises. If he is right, why, after centuries, would so many endowment funds still be in existence and providing such significant benefits? The Oxford and Cambridge colleges are a good example of that. The principle behind such funds are well accepted and the benefits well understood.

I mentioned the tremendous activities of the Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal, which are largely due to its splendid leadership and the obvious acceptance of the worthiness of the cause. However, it will not be possible to have a major fund-raising activity every year, because it has involved a massive amount of work by many people. Thus to argue that the establishment of an endowment fund means that it is impossible to direct the moneys raised to a specific cause does not hold water. The advantage of an endowment fund is that it continues to provide income for causes for many years.

The general principle is the need to match funds, which applies to the National Lottery Charities Board. It gives individual grants for one-off purposes for one year only, usually when an organisation to which it is giving the money has demonstrated by its own efforts that it has raised a good deal of the sums itself. That same principle will apply under the Bill; it is not true that organisations such as John Lewis will be prevented from continuing to give. The body to which it is suggested that charitable money should go as an endowment will have to demonstrate, as the EDP appeal did, that it has put a huge effort into the process and has raised a great deal of money. All we are doing is continuing the principle of lottery funding. We are giving the same incentive as we give to endowment funds to those bodies that are trying to secure money from the board.

I am delighted to delay returning to my constituency to support the Bill and, again, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his achievement. For all the reasons that we have given, I hope that if the Bill is not enacted in this Parliament, the winner of the election will pick it up and make it law. The hon. Gentleman has done Norfolk and the House a great service by introducing the Bill.

I am happy to support the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for introducing it and I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. It is heartening to see hon. Members from both sides of the House who represent Norfolk constituencies in the Chamber and it is always a pleasure to speak about a Bill that has all-party support. I hope that the Bill also has the Government's support. It has the backing of the local media, and a consensus appears to have been reached.

Having mentioned the media, I should, of course, make it clear that I am talking about the Eastern Daily Press, which has already done such sterling work, with its "We Care" appeal. It is through the newspaper's campaigning zeal that the anomaly in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which this Bill seeks to correct, has been brought to public attention. I pay tribute to the work that it has done. Clearing up the anomaly that prevents the National Lottery Charities Board from making grants to endowments is long overdue.

Norfolk Members of Parliament have also done their bit. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North for introducing the Bill, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) for the large sums that he has raised and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), who has already raised many thousands of pounds for the appeal with a sponsored walk around his constituency. I, too, was invited to do something along those lines, but I am afraid that I did not at that time consider myself to be at peak fitness—not that I can remember when I was at peak fitness. However, all right hon. and hon. Members may soon have the opportunity to do a lot of walking around their constituencies, and if that is the case, it should prove good fitness training for taking part in a sponsored walk for the appeal in the not-too-distant future, and I certainly intend to be a part of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North listed the reasons for the Bill. I would like to highlight the Bill's relevance to my constituency of Great Yarmouth, particularly to three constituents. Recent statistics have shown that Great Yarmouth is the fifth most deprived area in the United Kingdom. That measure of deprivation takes in many factors, but it is undoubtedly true that many people in Great Yarmouth will benefit from the aim of the Norfolk millennium trust for carers, which is:

"to relieve the elderly, infirm, sick or disabled in Norfolk by the provision of financial and practical support to their carers either individually or through carers' groups."

There are carers the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, all doing a fantastic job, but I know from my experience as Great Yarmouth's MP just how many people there are on my own doorstep, often unseen or unheralded by the rest of society, who are caring full-time for loved ones. Indeed, only this week I received a letter from a constituent who gave up her well-paid job as a geologist to look after her disabled mother full-time. She asked a perfectly reasonable question about whether anybody could really live properly on the £66.35 a week that she is paid.

There is still much more for the Government to do on this issue, but the Bill could make an immediate impression by allowing endowment trusts for carers, such as that established by the "We Care" appeal, to benefit from lottery funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North spoke about carers, but there is no harm in reiterating just how big a contribution the army of carers in our midst makes to society.

It is estimated that nationally one in seven of the population is an unpaid carer. In the county of Norfolk, that comes to approximately 110,000, which translates to around 13,000 in my constituency. Depending on the condition of the individual who is being cared for, round-the-clock care can easily cost £500 a week. Therefore, any carer who is receiving, for example, the £66.35 a week, such as the constituent I mentioned earlier, is saving society more than £400 a week. It has been calculated that, nationally, carers save the Government approximately £34 billion a year.

As a way of illustrating the ceaseless work that so many carers undertake, I would like to concentrate on the experiences of two constituents whom I have come to know very well over the past few years. Even before I became Great Yarmouth's MP, I knew of Tanya and Christine Harrison. Tanya is a bright, intelligent and charming young lady who was tragically struck down with myalgic encephalomyelitis, otherwise known as CFS—chronic fatigue syndrome. It took five years to diagnose her condition. Christine is her mother. Some right hon. and hon. Members will know that I am the chairman on the all-party group on ME, and through that work I have come to know much more about these remarkable ladies. Indeed, only on Wednesday of this week 1 received a report from the Action for ME charity highlighting the shortcomings in NHS treatment for those who are most severely affected by that debilitating condition. Inevitably, the task of providing full-time care for these unfortunate people, many of whom are still very young, tends to fall on their families.

Tanya is currently completing her degree course at the university of London, a remarkable achievement for someone so severely affected. The only reason that she has been able to do that is because Christine lives with her on the university campus and is there for her 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, as she has been for the past 10 years, since she was forced to give up her job working for Mencap. Tanya has been bedridden for those past 10 years.

I was speaking to Christine about it only this week. There is so much that can be said about the emotional, physical and financial stresses that she, her daughter and the rest of the family have been through. However, Christine said that it is possible to sum it up in one sentence:

"I've given my life up to enable Tanya to have a life."

She said:

"The effects are simply endless; it is just impossible to have a normal family life. I have to cook all her meals and take them to her in bed. There is no such thing as the whole family sitting down

together for a meal. If Tanya is lonely I have to go and sit on her bed to talk to her. Christmas time can be very difficult. This Christmas my 80-year-old mother was ill with flu, but I couldn't go and visit her because of the devastating effect it would have if I picked up the virus and transmitted it to Tanya. We live very near the beach, but it is impossible for Tanya and I just to go for a walk on that beach. My son has been marvellously understanding and has a great relationship with Tanya, but as a parent you sometimes can't help but feel guilty that you aren't giving him the same attention."

I could say much more about the physical and emotional stress that Christine and Tanya have dealt with over the years, but I should like to say a little about their financial circumstances, as the Bill could make a difference. As Christine says:

"It's not that you don't want to be a carer for your daughter: of course you do, but the financial impact is very great.

I give her 24 hour care 365 days a year. If I didn't give up my whole life she would be in a home and the Government would have to pay. I receive £40.40 a week for being a carer. Over the 168 hours in a week that works out to 24.05p an hour …168 hours at the previous minimum wage of £3.70 an hour is £621.60.

Giving up your job and career has massive financial implications in itself, but then you face other expenses such as extra heating bills and in our case we've still had to pay for things such as medicines and eye tests at full rate. You also worry about things such as your pension arrangements as well.

We seem to have had a constant battle with doctors and social services to get benefits. It hasn't just been a case of waiting, but of fighting. It can really wear you down constantly having to reiterate to others the seriousness of the situation and always having to explain how ill Tanya really is.

The emotional, physical and financial impact on the carer can be very hard. I think sometimes respite care can be needed as much for the carer as for the patient. It would be great to have a break and to have a meal cooked for me just for once."

There is much more of Tanya and Christine's story that I could tell, but I am sure that I have given right hon. and hon. Members a flavour of it. However, I hope that their story demonstrates not only the terrific devotion and dedication of one particular carer—a story that is repeated millions of times up and down the land—but the need for further financial and practical assistance for these selfless people.

Initiatives such as the "We Care" appeal provide for the endowment of charities. That is so important because it enables secure and long-term funding arrangements to be put in place. There is nothing wrong with the National Lottery Charities Board making one-off grants for various charitable expenditure as it does at the moment, but the continuing and permanent nature of the work of carers requires financial and practical support over a far longer time scale and it is clearly wrong that the lottery cannot at the moment provide that. For that reason, the Bill has my wholehearted support.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on having secured a high place in the ballot and on his perspicacity in introducing this Bill.

As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, there has been a touch of common cynicism in the belief that most of the private Members' Bills in this Session would be killed off, not in the massacre of the innocents by the Government Whips on a Friday, but by the onset of a general election. Indeed, I suppose that until almost the beginning of the week, that would have been the inevitable fate of this Bill. However, I suspect that many of us are no longer sure that that will be so. I understand that the Prime Minister is now taking command of the foot and mouth crisis—the advisers and spin doctors have been banished, at least for this week—and if he decides to postpone the election, one plus would be that the Bill may have a fair wind and become law. Most Members present would fully support that.

Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I think that the outstanding work of the Eastern Daily Press, and especially of its deputy editor, James Ruddy, and his colleagues, has massively boosted the appeal. I also pay tribute to the hard graft of the appeal's director, Paddy Seligman. I do not want to embarrass her, but the analogy that I would use is that she is a larger than life, Mo Mowlam character with a serious dash of Margaret Thatcher on top. She is like a gutsy, explosive culinary dish. It takes such people to drive things through and energise local businesses and voluntary organisations.

We are discussing in general terms a private Member's Bill that will have an effect across the board, but like others who have spoken I want to talk about the particular. The hon. Member for Norwich, North is trying to correct an anomaly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said. The Eastern Daily Press "We Care" appeal has two aspects.

The first is a general principle. As a Conservative, I believe in smaller government and in rigorous control of public expenditure. However, when public expenditure is required, every effort should be made to use it in the most useful and expeditious way. Having established the principle, the practice is also important. The most important practice in this case should be seen from a narrow Treasury point of view. We should make every effort to encourage voluntary organisations.

What makes the United Kingdom different from many other countries is not necessarily language and history, but the marvellous British tradition of volunteering. Without the hundreds of thousands of unpaid volunteers, not only the caring sector but all parts of our society would grind to a halt. Under our current party political organisation, most of us rely on the voluntary spirit at that most narrow basic level.

Attempts should be made to ensure that moneys raised can be used more expeditiously. The irony is that that saves public expenditure in the long term. In Norfolk, there is a core of 110,000 carers—relatives and others. Those people fulfil a fundamental role, as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) graphically described. If they did not do so, the people whom they look after would either suffer or, more likely, would be an even greater burden on the local authority social services. The social services budget for Norfolk county council is more than £2 million in the red.

I support the Bill because it addresses both principle and practice. I pay tribute to the work of my parliamentary colleagues in Norfolk. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth and I are both built more for comfort than speed—I hope he takes that remark in the spirit in which it is offered—whereas the hon. Member for Norwich, North is built more like a racing snake and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk has feline body language. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), who is an outstanding MP. His constituents will want to return him with an even bigger majority. He did a long walk along the north Norfolk coast and raised a remarkable £10,000.

I hope that that was not the valedictory speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. He is a distinguished member of the Magic Circle, and as a magician—pouf, just like that—he may reappear in a few weeks' time if we do not have a general election. He has been an outstanding Member for South Norfolk, and has supported many of the charities that we are discussing.

I hope that my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), will give general and generous support to the Bill. I realise that, as with all private Member's Bills, it is not a belt-and-braces measure and does not meet all the Government's requirements, but the Secretary of State gave warm consideration to the proposals of the hon. Member for Norwich, North when a delegation of us met him several weeks ago.

I hope that the Bill will be given a fair wind by the House. It addresses an anomaly that affects a number of charitable organisations, especially the Eastern Daily Press appeal in Norfolk.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing such a high place in the ballot, which many of us would cherish but few achieve, and on using the opportunity to advance support for such a worthy cause, not just in his constituency, but in those of many right hon. and hon. Members, as we have heard.

The issues that the hon. Gentleman raised deserve detailed scrutiny. However, we are not here to discuss the merits of the charity or to second-guess whether, were it able to do so, the National Lottery Charities Board would support that charity. I pay tribute to him for the way he researched the Bill and the issues surrounding it. He mentioned the NLCB's current programme and the work that it is doing to provide funds for various projects that support charitable groups. The question for us is whether the proposed change is desirable, whether it would improve the workings of the NLCB and provide greater equity of opportunity to obtain grants from the board, or whether it would have adverse consequences for the work of the board or the operation of the lottery funding bodies.

Our role in the limited time that we have to look into the matter is to give our views in principle on the aims of the Bill. We should discuss policy on the NLCB funding of endowments, and the impact of any change in the national lottery legislation on the funding bodies and the distribution of funds to them by the lottery.

There is no point in widening the remit of a funding body if the funds available are insufficient to meets its programme of work. We should not oppose a change that would allow the NLCB to provide grants to endowments where the endowment was the vehicle being used to deliver a charitable project that it would otherwise have supported. If the point is that a problem in the current legislation has prevented support for a particular charitable project because it was being funded by an endowment, we feel that a change in law would be entirely reasonable. A difficulty would arise, however, if the NLCB felt obliged to fund endowments that would deal with the money as grant-making bodies.

We all know of charities in our constituencies that have received revenue funding for fixed periods, perhaps three years. I can think of two such charities in my constituency. The Ryedale detached youth work project is a street-level support project for youngsters in rural Ryedale and reaches out to youngsters who take drugs, suffer alcoholism or are homeless. We have received funding for three years, but there is nothing beyond that. Similarly, the NLCB has funded a national charity that happens to be based in Ryedale, the Encephalitis Support Group, which helps families in which a member—often a child—suffers from a difficult virus about which little is medically known. Again, the money will be exhausted at the end of a specified period.

When charities are funded, they usually receive money that will enable them to carry on their work for an appreciable period. That differs, however, from providing an endowment that could be invested and used to provide grants to individuals in perpetuity. The NLCB is right to be concerned that that might be an adverse consequence arising from the change proposed by the hon. Member for Norwich, North. None the less, if the law as it stands prevents the funding of a charitable project simply because the vehicle delivering the funding is an endowment, we should think it wholly reasonable for the law to be changed.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the different legislative provisions of section 33(1) of the 1993 Act, which restricts the NLCB to grants for charitable expenditure, as opposed to funding projects. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) commented that it is difficult to understand why the NLCB was treated differently and why endowments were excluded. In the most charitable way possible, I have to point out that he was a member of the Cabinet at the time, which just goes to show the extent to which the detail of proposals can go beyond what we can possibly cover on Second Reading. These are technical and complex legal issues.

My right hon. Friend also highlighted the success of endowments in general. As we prepare to be the next Government, we think that endowments should indeed be an important vehicle by which to deliver a number of projects. We have drawn up detailed plans on how endowments could be used to fund arts, cultural and sporting organisations in order to give them the financial base that they need.

We are not likely to resolve such technical issues today. The NLCB has had legal advice that there are technical deficiencies in the Bill, particularly as concerns philanthropic and benevolent bodies. The hon. Member for Norwich, North made a good fist of trying to explain the technical difficulties of the law in that area, but the problems reinforce the need to review and reform charity law in general. The lottery legislation reflects charity law and case law, and there is a growing sense that we need to reconsider the position in collaboration with the Charity Commission as well as the NLCB.

We should remember the point about interest rates referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, and about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) expressed his concern in an intervention. That is not an argument against endowments, which we strongly favour. We need, however, to bear it in mind when we consider the best use of the NLCB's limited resources.

In a Committee earlier this week, the Minister and I had a discourse on the Government's proposals for the funding initiatives now available to the new opportunities fund. I mentioned that the NLCB's share of lottery funding had been reduced from 20 per cent. to 16.67 per cent. I understand the Government's view that the lottery was so much more successful than everyone imagined that all the funding bodies received more money than they expected. However, their funding has gone down.

This is neither the time nor the place to debate the way in which lottery funds are distributed among bodies, but we all know of many charities that have applied for lottery funding and been refused. All kinds of reasons are advanced for that—including the argument that a charity is an endowment and, therefore, does not qualify—but one reason why the NLCB must decline many applications is that it simply does not have the funds to meet all the demands placed on it. The resources of the NLCB are by far the most stretched of all the lottery funding bodies.

We should need reassurance on the technical issues if the Bill were to proceed. Normally, such issues could be explored in Committee, but we suspect that they will be left to the next Parliament. The lottery has been a major success, indeed one of the major—in two senses of the word—successes of the final years of the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). None the less, it needs further reform, and I assure the hon. Member for Norwich, North that if it falls to us to be the next Government, as I sincerely hope that it will, we shall take the matters that he has raised into account in the review of lottery legislation that we intend to conduct early in the next Parliament.

It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), although I am not sure that he was right to say that these matters may fall to the next Parliament. I suspect that the general election may well be delayed. The Prime Minister has a difficult choice to make. He knows of the crisis that faces farmers the length and breadth of our country. At the same time, he will be conscious of the economic crisis that faces the world and our country. He will be only too aware that, while he has boasted that his Government have presided over boom and boom, if we are heading for a bust, it will not say much for his understanding of economic policy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the factors that the Prime Minister will have to take into account when considering whether to call a general election will be private Members' Bills such as this one? If he calls a premature election a year ahead of when he need do, this Bill, along with many others, could become a victim of that decision.

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There has been so much speculation that there will be a general election in May that people do not realise that constitutionally, under the Parliament Acts, the Prime Minister could leave it until June 2002.

My purpose today is to talk not about the date of the general election but about this admirable Bill. I feel that I have to rise as a non-Norfolk Member of Parliament. There has been much talk about the importance of the Bill to Norfolk charities, but we should make it clear that the same applies to charities throughout the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it is right and proper to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I congratulate him on having the good luck to be drawn so high in the ballot that he can present a Bill, and on his good intentions and good judgment in presenting this one.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) spoke about the excellent work of Paddy Seligman. If I were her, I am not sure that I would be so pleased with his description of her as "gutsy but explosive". I am a fan of Indian cuisine, and it sounds like a description of a Sainsbury's vindaloo, which I tried last night and can confirm was indeed gutsy and explosive.

It has been a unique experience for me to see how so many people and organisations have worked together for good common purpose to see this Bill become law. It is extraordinary that the provision applies only to the National Lottery Charities Board. I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm that only the NLCB is affected by the Bill and that the lottery boards for sports, heritage and the arts are not constrained in the establishment of endowments. If they are so constrained, ought not the Bill to be expanded so that those boards also have the freedom to do so if they see fit?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised an important point. He said that, although it might not be wrong to set one up, an endowment would create difficult choices for the relevant lottery board. Interest rates are low at present. We may be heading for a period of economic decline over the next few months as the Stock Exchange collapses and the boom that has lasted since 1993, although the rate of growth of the economy has slowed since 1997, comes to an end. If we are entering a period of bust, interest rates will go even lower, unless of course we join the euro.

If we join the euro, we will not be in a position to decide our interest rates. We will be in a strange position. If Germany were enjoying a strong economic position, the interest rates set in Frankfurt would not apply to the position in the United Kingdom. I digress; I will not further consider whether we should enter the euro.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Surely those who make the decisions, be it anonymous boards of bureaucrats or the charities, to go for an endowment approach to take money now for immediate benefit will have to factor in forecasts of trends in interest rates, which is a hazardous business. Does he think that that has been brought out sufficiently in the debate so far? We have heard glowing accounts of how wonderful endowments are, but there is a down side.

There is always a down side. Money does not grow on trees, and difficult decisions always have to be made. The NLCB will have to bear it in mind that if it establishes endowments for tens or even hundreds of millions of pounds, that money, as my right hon. Friend says, will not be available to give in grants for day-to-day expenditure in a particular year. However, that is not an argument for saying that endowments should not be established. He is right that there is a down side as well as an up side.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) raised an interesting point when he said that, at a time of economic downturn when interest rates are low, it might be necessary to draw on capital sums from the endowment. Presumably, charities would pay back into the endowment when interest rates were higher. Will the Minister confirm that such flexibility will be possible? Will the boards be able to draw on the capital amounts set on the endowment at times of low interest rates in order to return the sums at times of high interest rates? Such flexibility will be important if lottery funds are not to be irrevocably damaged.

There are many examples of organisations that have been funded with large capital grants by various lottery boards. In my constituency, the heritage lottery fund has given large sums of money to a series of projects. I live next door to the Erasmus Darwin museum in the centre of Lichfield. Erasmus Darwin house was severely damaged by earth subsidence some years ago and lovingly restored with a grant from the fund. It is now an open secret that the museum is having difficulty funding its day-to-day operations.

If a lottery board felt that it was worth continuing with such projects—projects throughout the country are experiencing difficulty with their day-to-day funding—provided that the difficulty was temporary, it would be right and proper to provide assistance with the day-to-day running of an organisation. I make it an important proviso that the difficulties should be temporary. An endowment might be the ideal way to do that, but it is important that endowments should not be used to prop up lame ducks. If they are, the money will not be available to fund programmes such as those that the hon. Member for Norwich, North has already spoken about, or other worthwhile projects.

The Bill has exposed an anomaly in the way in which the lottery funding boards were established. It seems strange that the sport, heritage and arts lottery boards are impeded by the problem. I think that the Minister will confirm that that is the case. This admirable Bill will ensure that the anomaly is corrected and in that respect, I support it.

I must admit that I am torn by the Bill. I see a number of aspects to it. It is in many ways the ideal private Member's Bill. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for presenting it to the House. It is focused and deliberately narrow in its intention, although much broader in its potential effect. It is on the face of it—

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Marchioness inquiries.

In the early hours of 20 August 1989, 51 people tragically lost their lives in the Thames following a collision between the dredger Bowbelle and the pleasure craft Marchioness. Many members of the public were profoundly shocked that such an event could happen in the centre of London, on a warm August night.

Since the tragedy, the survivors and families of the victims have campaigned for a full public inquiry. On 14 February 2000, I reported to the House Lord Justice Clarke's conclusion—from his Thames safety inquiry—that a formal investigation should have taken place soon after the incident. He recommended that I should now order one, and I agreed to do so.

I also established a non-statutory inquiry into the identification of victims following major transport accidents. I thank Lord Justice Clarke for undertaking those difficult tasks so well. At the outset, he clearly indicated that the purpose of the investigation and inquiry was not retribution, but to establish what had happened and to learn the necessary lessons for the future. Copies of both reports have been placed in the Library of the House, together with our response to the 30 recommendations made in the formal investigation report.

The exact circumstances of the collision have been a matter of dispute for more than a decade. Never before have all the relevant documents been assembled and subjected to such scrutiny.

The formal investigation finds that responsibility for the accident lies with the master of the Bowbelle, Captain Henderson; the Bowbelle's owners, East Coast Aggregates Ltd.; its managers, South Coast Shipping Ltd.; the skipper of the Marchioness, Mr. Faldo; and its owners, Kenneth Dwan and William Ludgrove of Tidal Cruises Ltd., because of their failure to establish and maintain an appropriate lookout on their vessels.

The investigation finds that both vessels were in breach of collision regulations and of Port of London authority byelaws. It finds that Captain Henderson of the Bowbelle was in breach of his obligation to broadcast a mayday and to launch life-saving equipment.

The investigation also criticises the Port of London authority and the former Department of Transport. The Port of London authority failed to require vessels with limited visibility forward—such as the Bowbelle—to locate a lookout with an effective means of communication with the bridge. The Department failed to apply its policy that all pleasure craft on the Thames should have all-round visibility from the bridge, and did not give adequate thought to means of escape when the Marchioness was converted in 1980. The Department also failed to ensure that a condition requiring an extra lookout was imposed each time the Marchioness passenger certificate was renewed. As Secretary of State, I apologise unreservedly for the past failings of the Department—especially to the relatives.

The investigation deplores the amount of drink Captain Henderson had taken before he rejoined his ship. However, expert medical advice at the investigation indicated that he would not have been adversely affected by alcohol at the time of the incident, although his rest may have been disturbed. The report concludes that Mr. Faldo, of the Marchioness, who unfortunately lost his life, had not been drinking alcohol that night, although he may have been fatigued by the long hours that he had worked.

During the investigation, Captain Henderson of the Bowbelle admitted that during the 1980s he had forged a signature on watch-keeping certificates and his discharge book in order to gain his masters certificate. Captain Henderson did not volunteer that information to the marine accident investigation branch in 1989.

Having considered the legal arguments advanced during the investigation, including Captain Henderson's entitlement to have his civil rights determined within a reasonable time, Lord Justice Clarke did not take disciplinary action against Captain Henderson. That is a shameful consequence of the failure to hold a formal investigation following the disaster. Nor has Lord Justice Clarke recommended that action be taken against any other party found responsible for the accident.

The preliminary advice that I have received is that there is little prospect of a successful prosecution of Captain Henderson. However, I am referring the entire formal investigation report to the Director of Public Prosecutions for him to consider what action would be appropriate against Captain Henderson or any other party. I have also asked the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to undertake an urgent review of Captain Henderson's fitness to hold a British masters certificate of competency under the Merchant Shipping Acts.

Lord Justice Clarke previously reviewed safety on the Thames and made 44 recommendations; we have acted on all of them. He makes 30 further recommendations in this report; we will take forward all of them and our detailed response to those recommendations has been placed in the Library with the reports.

Lord Justice Clarke warmly welcomes my Department's decision to undertake a comprehensive formal safety assessment of small passenger vessels. Work is already under way.

Although drink-driving is an offence on the roads, it has not been on the river. We recently announced our intention to introduce, in the forthcoming safety Bill, an alcohol limit for those in charge of vessels. We also strongly support the recommendation that all shipping companies should have a clear policy regarding both alcohol and drug taking by their crews and the means to monitor its observance.

We are also putting in place new arrangements to co-ordinate search and rescue and to provide additional rescue facilities on the Thames, including three permanently manned lifeboats provided by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The coastguard accepts overarching responsibility for search and rescue on the tidal Thames—as elsewhere in the UK.

Lord Justice Clarke singles out the role played in the rescue by the Metropolitan police officers. He commends their efforts and those of members of the public—including the so-called Hurlingham boys—who came to the rescue. I am sure that the House will want to join me in supporting those comments.

I now turn to the non-statutory inquiry that I ordered at the same time. It is hard to envisage the distress that relatives must have felt when they learned that hands had been removed from the bodies of some of those who died. Lord Justice Clarke considered the concerns of the relatives, including the removal of hands for identification; the failure to inform relatives that hands had been removed; and the refusal to allow relatives to view the bodies.

Lord Justice Clarke finds that the removal of hands for identification purposes should not have happened, except as a last resort. The responsibility for authorising the removal of hands lay entirely with Dr. Knapman, the coroner. He is criticised for failing to make it clear that this was to be an action only of last resort.

Lord Justice Clarke stressed the importance of respecting the dead and their relatives and of working with sensitivity throughout; of ensuring that full, honest and accurate information is given to the relatives at every stage; and of respecting the request of a relative to view the body. I am sure that the House will be in accord with those sentiments.

The Government are acting on Lord Clarke's recommendations. With advances in DNA techniques, it is now rare for hands to be removed. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided to ask coroners to report to the Home Office any future cases where hands are removed.

The inquiry revealed a failure, in three cases, to reunite the severed hands with the bodies, as Dr. Knapman should have required. Westminster mortuary is also criticised for its procedures. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has agreed that the review of the Human Tissue Act 1961, following the Alder Hey inquiry report, will be widened to cover Lord Justice Clarke's recommendations.

Today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is announcing the terms of reference of a fundamental review of the coroner system, which will now also reflect these recommendations. Moreover, a copy of the report will be sent to every coroner. I ask them to consider it carefully, to see whether existing practices can be improved. The police service is also developing guidelines to improve its own procedures.

After the hearings, it emerged that tissue samples taken from four of the Marchioness victims had been found 11 years later in Westminster mortuary. Post mortems were carried out on all 51 victims after the tragedy and small samples of tissue removed, in accordance with normal forensic practice. Most of the samples were destroyed after six months, but four remained at Westminster mortuary. I should emphasise that, contrary to newspaper reports, these were small amounts of tissue, not the organs themselves, and that the material was not used for research.

Lord Justice Clarke wrote to the Secretary of State for Health about those samples, and my right hon. Friend has agreed to refer the matter to the newly established Retained Organs Commission for further action, in consultation with the relatives. The Home Secretary has also agreed to undertake a review of practice and procedures in all public mortuaries in England and Wales, to ensure compliance with best practice.

After 11 long years, Lord Justice Clarke has provided the definitive account of the Marchioness tragedy. Responsibility has at long last been attributed and laid at the door of the skippers, the owners and the managers of both vessels. Criticism has been levelled at the Department of Transport, the Port of London authority, the coroner and the mortuary.

The lessons of the accident continue to be learned. The Thames is a safer place than it was in 1989. It can and must become safer still. The sinking of the Marchioness profoundly shocked the nation. A full public inquiry should have been held years ago. Lord Justice Clarke states that he hopes that his inquiry will help to ensure that nothing like this happens again. He says that his report may not satisfy everyone, but he hopes that the inquiry will have played a small part in helping the relatives and survivors to put the appalling tragedy behind them and contributed to improving safety on the Thames in future. The reports provide a chilling reminder of the need for vigilance and will stand as a permanent rebuke to those found at fault.

Finally, I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to the tenacity and courage of the relatives for their tireless campaign to secure a full public inquiry. The improvements that we have seen to river safety are a lasting testament to their commitment. I commend the reports to the House.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of the report and of his statement—and I thank Lord Justice Clarke for his report.

No one can who reads the files and recalls the memories of this terrible tragedy can fail to be moved. The loss of so many successful and talented men and women, destroyed in the prime of their lives, can leave nothing but an inconsolable sense of waste. From the moment that the accident was reported, it became apparent that it should have been avoidable.

There were failings, and I join the Deputy Prime Minister in saying that I am very sorry for those failings, which are underlined in the recommendations arising from the marine accident investigation branch report. Subsequent inquiries have produced further recommendations, including those in the Hayes inquiry under the previous Administration, and Lord Justice Clarke's. interim recommendations.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister have confidence in the safety management and procedures on the River Thames today? He has announced further improvements, but river traffic is growing rapidly. Is he confident that safety management is matching that growth? May I ask him to express confidence in the marine accident investigation branch in respect of its role in river safety? Does he think that it has learned the lessons from the episode?

Is not the overwhelming lesson that safety management must be proactive and that every vessel must be constantly capable of navigating safely at all times? Following the recommendations, what procedures will the right hon. Gentleman's Department pursue to keep river safety up to date-for example, to make maximum use of technology? Can he confirm that those recommendations will be extended to other similar waterways in the United Kingdom?

On the non-statutory report, everyone will share the right hon. Gentleman's sense of revulsion at the treatment of the dead and bereaved after the accident. We can ensure that those events are never repeated. I welcome the action that the right hon. Gentleman proposes and the widening of the Alder Hey inquiry to consider them, but is that expected to delay the Alder Hey inquiry in any way?

Finally, I join the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to the relatives of those who perished. They will never be able to draw a line under the episode. They will live the nightmare of that night for the rest of their lives. The improvements to river safety a announced today and since the disaster will provide some comfort, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they are a lasting testament to the relatives' commitment to river safety.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response and for welcoming Lord Justice Clarke's recommendations. May I also say, together with him, how much the House appreciates the very hard work that Lord Justice Clarke put into the inquiry? It was essential that he defined what happened on the night because previous Governments had failed to do so. He restored confidence in the type of investigations that can take place in the event of such tragedies, which we all want to avoid. I am grateful to him for his support and congratulate him on all that he has done. The report is a remarkable piece of work.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the recommendations. Our views on them can be read in the document that has been placed in the Library. We always need to be vigilant about safety management on the river, whatever rules and regulations exist. Individuals often take decisions in difficult circumstances, which can contribute in some way, but we have to be assured that we have a regulatory framework that can ensure that the best standards are applied. Anyone reading Lord Justice Clarke's report will find out about the sloppiness that existed in the companies, as well as on board ship, for which responsibility has to be taken. No doubt we shall come to that argument when we discuss corporate responsibility in the near future.

We all welcome the fact that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is now in charge of search and rescue and of imposing good safety standards. The House will generally welcome the fact that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is very much involved. We have ensured that the standards are applied to other rivers around the country. A review is taking place to ensure that the same standards are maintained in other rivers.

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about whether the marine accident investigation branch has learned its lessons. The report shows what can happen when discretion is involved in deciding whether there should be an interim inquiry and a public inquiry. It is necessary to hold the interim inquiry first. The record of the past 10 years clearly shows that people were making decisions and recommendations, but did not exercise the right to hold a public inquiry.

I would not want people to think that the marine accident investigation branch was the only means of conducting an investigation. It was thought in the Department at the time that the MAIB could act in the same way as the air accidents investigation branch. I am not sure that that is the right way to proceed; the MAIB can be involved but, ultimately, discretion on whether to hold a public inquiry lies with Ministers.

Those who look at the record can decide for themselves, but, frankly, I think the process failed. The marine accident investigation branch cannot be totally totally to blame. Its terms of reference required it to discover what happened, not to look behind that to find out what the faults were and whether there was any blame. In any inquiry involving a vessel that has gone down with the loss of 55 lives, that should happen. That gives me the opportunity to deal with the controversial issue of whether an inquiry could be held up because of the possibility of legal prosecutions. I think that the inquiry should continue, whatever is happening with prosecutions, but we are discussing that matter at the moment. The Lord Chancellor is addressing himself to that problem, about which the House has from time to time expressed concern.

On whether the Alder Hey inquiry will be delayed, I shall ask the Secretary of State for Health to write to the hon. Gentleman with a response. I do not think it will be delayed, but I would prefer to allow my colleague to respond.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the people who have had to carry this heavy burden for so long. They demanded a public inquiry, and Lord Justice Clarke has responded to them. He has made his recommendations and I have given the House the Government's view of them.

Since 1989, I have been the constituency Member as well as the party representative most associated with the tragedy, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his unique commitment to ensuring that there was an inquiry. I thank him for that without qualification. He knows that both the families and I respect him greatly.

I join the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in paying tribute to Lord Justice Clarke and those who helped him. They did an excellent job. I also join in the tributes to the families of those who survived and those who did not. The families did not give in, in spite of the amazing obstacles that were placed in their way. They and the so-called Hurlingham boys—the people on the other boat that night who came and saved lives—deserve unqualified thanks. I hope that this statement is some consolation to them above all.

The conclusion of these two full reports is that terrible and fatal failures took place before, on and after the night of the sinking. Those failures led to the tragic and unnecessary deaths of 51 people with huge potential. I share the view of the hon. Member for North Essex. The obvious conclusion is that this sinking should not and need not have happened, and all those responsible should have been held responsible.

I choose my words carefully, but I think that the previous Conservative Government made the disgraceful decision not to hold the inquiry that was asked for from the beginning. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman played no part in that decision. However, if an earlier inquiry had taken place, many of the remedies that are not now available would have been available. Unfortunately, that failure cannot now be put right.

I shall not do anything other than welcome all the Secretary of State's recommendations—I support them. However, I wish to ask some specific questions. Can he assure the House that, in addition to the referral of the Captain Henderson case, he will satisfy himself that any other legal action that can be properly and fairly taken will be considered and, if appropriate, taken?

If there is no election this year or if the Secretary of State and the Labour party are in government after an election, will he undertake that legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity to cover corporate responsibility for deaths and manslaughter? Such legislation should have been introduced a long time ago, but the sooner we get a law on the statute book, the better.

The Secretary of State made the welcome announcement that the Home Secretary will consider the provisions for coroner's inquests. However, will he undertake that that consideration will cover the issues to which he referred? Coroner's inquests, calls for a public inquiry and criminal and civil proceedings often all come together, so a co-ordinated and sensible approach must be taken to them.

The Secretary of State said that the coastguard will take responsibility for search and rescue. Does that mean that, in future, in every search and rescue operation on inland waterways, the coastguard will direct the police, the river police and the appropriate port or river authorities? One of the lessons of this case is that no one took ultimate responsibility, but someone should ultimately be responsible for what happens on the Thames and other inland waterways.

The lessons of Lord Justice Clarke's second report appear to be that no one had clear responsibility for looking after the victims and their families from the moment of the accident, and the bodies of the dead were not sacrosanct. I hope that the Government are saying that, in future, anyone who ever loses a relative in such a tragedy will know that limbs, organs and body parts cannot be taken without the authority of the family. That conclusion must be drawn from this and other cases; I hope that the Government will make that the legal position from now on.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about my personal involvement in this matter. In these difficult times, we have had to make difficult decisions and have had to ask relatives to trust us. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the support that he has given me in securing the trust that has enabled us to make a definitive statement of what happened on the night of the accident. I am also grateful that he expressed appreciation and paid tribute to the relatives, and to Lord Justice Clarke for his report.

I agree that much needs to be done if we are to learn the lessons. The recommendations that have been made represent a major step towards doing that and I want them to be implemented as quickly as possible and without delay.

On the hon. Gentleman's question about Captain Henderson, I am referring the whole report to the Director of Public Prosecution, and I have not limited my request for advice to Captain Henderson. I would like advice about any party who has responsibility in this matter.

The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed to the delays that occurred and they relate to other pieces of legislation and the human rights of the people involved in this case. However, as Lord Justice Clarke has pointed out, the delays have meant that we cannot take any further action. In addition, the two or three court cases delayed the proper inquiry, and one court did not come to a decision, which prevented any secondary charges being made. All those events have added to the complications, which is why my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is reviewing the business of the inquiries and prosecutions that can take place when there are such conflicts. Delays are unacceptable to the relatives and those who are interested in these cases, so we are addressing ourselves directly to that point.

On corporate responsibility, the Home Office has conducted a review, which was finished in September. We have said that our conclusions will appear in a new safety Bill that will be introduced if we are re-elected.

The way in which coroners deal with such cases is actively under review. Indeed, the report makes a number of specific recommendations which we have accepted. A review is being conducted by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health to improve the position.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the coastguard. We have introduced for the Thames provisions similar to those for most of our estuaries and rivers, but the coastguard does not operate in every river where there are passenger boats. We are therefore conducting a review of what are called the class 5 vessels that are found in rivers and estuaries throughout the country. We want greater uniformity in the system and I shall report to the House when we have completed the review.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the trauma that the victims have suffered, and that has been a feature of all the accidents that have occurred in the past couple of decades. Our provisions for handling trauma have improved, as we can see from the fact that companies involved in railway tragedies are better informed. Local authorities are also more helpful. However, if a post mortem is necessary, nothing should be done to the bodies of the loved ones without the agreement of the relatives. That recommendation has been made strongly, but Lord Justice Clarke makes it clear that, for obvious reasons, coroners have a right to conduct post mortems; however, we must achieve a better balance and I think that the recommendations achieve that.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and, more important, for initiating the two inquiries.

Much safety legislation reaches the statute book only when lessons are learned from transport and fire tragedies. That has happened time and again and it appears that we react to tragedies instead of being proactive. Surely any multiple loss of life should automatically lead to a full public inquiry to ensure that the causes are completely examined and to obtain public confidence. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give the House that future Governments will act as he has done in promptly calling for a public inquiry when there is a tragedy? In the case of the Marchioness, families and others encountered difficulties because the then Government blocked the initiation of a public inquiry. Can he assure us that public inquiries will take place if there are disasters and tragedies in future?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He makes a powerful point about the circumstances that should lead to a public inquiry. He mentioned one of the criteria; the loss of life. In the terrible train tragedy at Great Heck, lives were lost, but no one disputed the facts behind that accident: it was not the fault of the railway system, but a combination of circumstances. I use that example without passing judgment on what happened at Great Heck. Sometimes a public inquiry is needed to find what happened and, if necessary, to apportion blame. There is an element of discretion in that difficult area.

The then Government started properly, with a preliminary inquiry into the sinking of the Marchioness. The first decision was taken by the Prime Minister herself on the day. She had a meeting at No. 10 with the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) —then the Minister of State, Department of Transport—because the Secretary of State was out of the country. They decided, first, to hold a preliminary inquiry, and to leave open the option for a full inquiry. The problem was that people began to find different reasons for not having a full inquiry. That led to suspicion among the relatives and to bad feeling; particularly as the Government had ordered a full inquiry into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise without such consideration.

I want to be fair to the previous Administration. It is proper to have a preliminary inquiry, but eventually discretion must be used by Ministers about whether there should be a public inquiry. As a result of the recommendations, we are reviewing the rules governing inquiries with the Lord Chancellor and others. As Lord Justice Clarke said, loss of life is one of the criteria when deciding whether to hold an inquiry, but there are others and we have to make judgments.

I cannot envisage a system in which discretion is not exercised, and, if it is, Ministers should be accountable to this House for their judgment. On balance, that is the better way of dealing with these matters and we can, I hope, come to the best judgments. Sometimes we cannot; if so, we are accountable to this House. If we do not settle the issues, such terrible matters could go on for years with nothing being done. That in turn leads to arguments because, when so much time has passed, it is impossible to pursue a proper prosecution or any further action.

In this case, there was a desire for a maritime accident report. However, when 10 or 11 years pass without a public inquiry, there is a chance of misinterpretation. People then believe that there is bad will and bad feeling, and that those involved are not doing enough. Public inquiries clear the air, with Ministers being answerable to this Chamber.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister very much for coming to the House so promptly and for making such a full statement. Is he satisfied—as far as he reasonably can be—that after learning the lessons from what has happened and from the report, we now have the combination of onshore and on-vessel systems and equipment that are necessary to provide the guarantee of safety that we need, given the welcome increase in traffic on the Thames? That is obviously important not just for Londoners, but for tourists. Is not the main thing that can come out of this process the maximum reassurance that I hope the Deputy Prime Minister feels able to give today, as that would be a fitting testament to those who died in the tragedy?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The question that he poses is the one that every one of us should ask. Looking at the statistics about the increasing traffic on the river, I cannot say that there has been a tremendous drop in the amount of incidents. They may not be the most serious types of incident, but the Thames is a busy river and traffic on it is growing all the time. The report showed not that there was a failure of manning or of competency, but that recommendations were just not observed. There was a certain sloppiness in the system which I believe contributed to the collision of the two vessels, although the main cause was that neither maintained lookouts, as was required under the Government's regulations on safety on the river. It is question of vigilance and accountability.

We have instituted some new checks and controls and, along with the 70-odd recommendations in the report, I believe that these will cause improvements. However, I have been involved in transport safety for a long time and I know that we can never be sure. All we can do is make sure that the checks are done properly and that vigilance is maintained. We must allow people to enjoy the river, but remind them that it can be dangerous. I would like to be able to say that there will never be another incident, but it would be foolish of me to do so. However, we are doing all that we can to prevent another one.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal commitment to the issue, without which we would not have learned the lessons from Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry. Clearly, those lessons—if, as he has said, they are implemented in full—will make the Thames a safer place. I also endorse my right hon. Friend's tribute, repeated by other Members, to the families, relatives and survivors of the Marchioness disaster. I have worked closely with them for the past four years, as has the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). My admiration and respect for the families, and for their determination and courage, has increased year by year.

I understand the families' anger that it has taken so long to find the answers to their questions. I note that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) is unable to be in the Chamber this morning, although, as we have heard, he was the duty Minister at the time, and was responsible for the decision that the inquiry should not take place. Would it not be appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to come to this House to give his own apology for not having an inquiry? That inquiry would have allowed the families and the relatives to put to rest their loved ones and would have allowed us to learn lessons which, if implemented, could have made the river a safer place over the past 11 years.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, especially those concerning the families. With regard to his remarks about the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, I said at the beginning that he met the Prime Minister on the day, as I would have expected; particularly when one considers that the Secretary of State was out of the country. It is a question not of individual responsibility, but of collective responsibility. A number of different Ministers and Secretaries of State have replied to the House on the subject over the past 10 or 11 years. Each came to the conclusion that there should not be a public inquiry. They may have made that decision for different reasons and at different times, but they all arrived at the same conclusion. That conclusion, in my view, was wrong.

The maritime accident report said that no fault had occurred that could result in disciplinary action. That was wrong. The body responsible was in constant discussion with Ministers. Lord Justice Clarke's report states that the recommendations from civil servants—arising out of an exchange in the Hayes report, which came after the maritime accident inquiry set up by the Government—were that perhaps Ministers should not have a full inquiry, but that if they did, they, the civil servants, would not be surprised. That is where discretion comes in.

Although my hon. Friend talks about individual responsibility for the matter, each must make his own decision about how he deals with the matter. I am in the unfortunate circumstances of apologising for a previous Administration but, in the circumstances, it is right for me to do so, as I have responsibility now. There was collective responsibility and, frankly, there was collective failure. That is brought out by Lord Justice Clarke's report, and that is where I would address my remarks about the failure to hold a public inquiry.

None of us should pay too much attention to the cheap remarks of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) on this serious occasion. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, the benefits to be derived from a public inquiry must be balanced against other considerations; for instance, the need to collect evidence for a criminal prosecution. In that context, could he tell the House whether Lord Justice Clarke has identified any recommendation which, had it been acted upon earlier, might have averted subsequent tragedies on the Thames?

It is a matter of balance; I am faced with striking a balance on the recommendations that I have received from Lord Justice Clarke, and deciding whether I take further action. I am trying to be fair to everyone concerned. I know that the relatives feel strongly that the human rights of those who say that they should be immune from prosecution must be balanced against those of the 55 people who died. That is a difficult balance to strike, and Lord Justice Clarke addressed the point.

On whether we have learned lessons, what contributed to the accident was a failure to observe the law of the land: under the collision regulations, there should be a lookout on a vessel on the Thames. We have not changed that law; it is just that it was not observed. The Clarke report states that individuals, such as Captain Henderson, did not observe the regulations. Some may face charges. Tragically, the captain of the Marchioness died in the accident. Companies also have responsibility. Because our law is not adequate to take action against the companies involved—to be fair, some of the relatives did take action—the courts were not prepared to entertain corporate responsibility or corporate manslaughter charges. Therefore, we are back to changing the law.

Great sloppiness is evident, and it is probably a criticism of the Department at the time that there was not just one accident. A few years previously, the Bowbelle was involved in similar collisions when it did not keep proper lookout. That should have alerted the Department to the need to take more action against such companies and the individuals working for them. It did not. The matter is not one of improving the regulations, although we are making improvements, but of ensuring that they are observed.

There are obviously many lessons to be learned from the inquiry, particularly for those who are concerned with safety on the river. The lesson about which I am most concerned is the one for us as politicians: how do we deal with matters such as this?

I have read the report of the marine accident investigation branch inquiry, and particularly in view of the latest report, it seems a seriously deficient piece of work. It suggests that there was

"no wilful misconduct in either vessel contributing to the collision",

yet later it finds that there was a failure to provide lookout. Indeed, as the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, at least one of the vessels was involved in another incident because of that failure. As the Clarke report suggests, Captain Henderson was in breach of his obligation to call a mayday and to launch rescue vessels.

It seems that there has been a degree of complacency about accepting the MAIB inquiry without seeing in it some very clear signals, in the historical context, that a better piece of work was required. Can I be assured by the Deputy Prime Minister that while we are in government, we will never be guilty of such complacency?

I must tell my hon. Friend that such circumstances often occur and Secretaries of State appear at the Dispatch Box to explain why, but I will do everything that I can to ensure that complacency does not have an effect on our regulations.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the MAIB report. Since it keeps coming up, I shall quote from it:

"The inspectors' final finding that there was no wilful misconduct in either vessel contributing to the collision, foundering or the loss of life is fully borne out by the preceding sections of this report and I make no recommendations for any disciplinary action to be taken."

That was not published until two years after the event, and 12 months later it was delivered to the Department.

Anybody reading Lord Justice Clarke's report will see that lookouts were not maintained, and that that was following two or three similar events in preceding years. That raises the question whether that was wilful misconduct on behalf of the captain or the companies. They certainly were not carrying out their responsibility. Their attitude was very complacent; I say no more than that. I shall do all that I can to see that we learn the lessons, and the 70-odd recommendations aim to do that.

I should make one correction. I made a mistake in talking about 55 deaths, when I should have said 51. I apologise for that. All in all, there are many lessons to be learned. At the end of the day, that was what Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry was about—to find out the truth, what went wrong and to see what we could do to prevent such an accident from happening again.

May I say how much I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement that there will be liaison and discussions with the Lord Chancellor's Department on whether there can be a public inquiry while there may also be criminal prosecutions.

The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in his statement the question of visibility. Has his Department given any thought to the use and compulsion of use of proximity radar, which would automatically sate whether another vessel is nearby? The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned that an assessment is being made of all small passenger vessels in use on the Thames. When will that assessment be completed?

I thank the hon. Member for his remarks. He makes an important point. If he looks at Lord Justice Clarke's inquiry, or the Hayes inquiry, which the previous Administration set up, he will see the difficulties with communication—whether vessels are located by radio, as normal, or by radar. Such vessels have those facilities.

As has been pointed out, the disco music on the Marchioness was so loud that the radio could not be heard. That is of serious concern. Visibility from the bridge was another matter of concern. As I said 10 years ago, somebody must have made a mistake. When the vessel was given a second deck on which passengers could dance, lack of visibility was obvious. When the vessel's stability was changed and it was given another deck, somebody must have agreed that it was safe and that there was full visibility. Clearly, it was not safe. That applied not only to this accident—similar incidents were reported concerning restriction of visibility on a number of vessels two or three years previously. So, it is not as if we did not know about such matters.

I am in a way risking my hand in saying that the real problem is that sometimes, recommendations are made but, on receiving them, people sit back. When asked why the owners did not implement them, it was simply said that they just did not do so. There was an argument over whether the lack of visibility required another crew member, which presumably had cost implications.

Either way, too many people looked in different directions and did not deal with the problem. That is at the heart of the matter. We must ensure that inspections systems are reviewed regularly. By the way, such systems were checked on this occasion, but nobody said that there was anything wrong. There was something wrong, and there is evidence to that effect. The case reveals sloppiness in the Department, but we are doing everything to see that that is corrected.

uncontroversial.

Having said that, the question is whether that point applies simply to the Bill or to the context in which the Bill is promoted. Although the Bill focuses on a particular element of the availability of lottery funding, I am always nervous when there is apparent unanimity on a measure. That bothers me greatly. I am also nervous when, obviously with the best possible motives, Members seek to build on one particular worthy cause or case and then claim that that legitimises taking the matter more widely. The Bill's contents raise several much wider questions about which we should at least satisfy ourselves before we allow it to make progress. I suspect that the Bill will be given a Second Reading today, but enough has already been said by my hon. Friends and in my few remarks to suggest that it will need careful scrutiny in Committee and on Report.

The first question is the role of Government and taxpayer funding relative to moneys channelled through the lottery. That is not a new question, but we should keep a close eye on it.

When the lottery was set up, I remember well that the philosophy behind it was that lottery funding should be available for matters that did not or could not attract Government—I prefer to say taxpayer—funding. As the years have passed, however, the distinction has been constantly blurred—especially, it must be said, under the present Government—to such an extent that it is now almost non-existent. The Government are using—I might even say plundering—the substantial lottery funds to do many things that we have thought hitherto should be done with Government, or taxpayers', money.

My right hon. Friend has raised the important question of additionality. When the lottery was established, we looked at examples in France, where the state—the taxpayer—traditionally funds grandiose projects of a kind that we in this country do not generally fund, at least not since the Victorian era. When the millennium fund was set up, it was planned that on its closure the money would be distributed among the existing funds. Is he aware that it was this Government, and this Government only, who decided that the money—money normally spent by the taxpayer—should instead be spent on health and education?

I think that we should emulate very little of what happens in France, although one exception might be, funnily enough, the French health service. We should perhaps look closely at that, not least because it was recently rated the best health service in the world. It is odd that we do not take a closer look at what the French apparently do better than we do: there may be lessons to be learned.

My hon. Friend's point reinforces my concern. I understand, for example, that the new opportunities fund has already been used to finance a network of healthy living centres, out-of-schools learning, out-of-schools child care, information and communications technology training for teachers and librarians, and the improvement of cancer prevention, detection and treatment. No one would claim that those were not the worthiest causes, but we must still ask why we have slid away from the proposition that the Government of the day should accept responsibility for such matters through, say, the national health service or the Department of Social Security. The Government look increasingly to lottery funds for those purposes, which is a radical departure from the philosophy that originally underpinned the lottery.

Let us leave aside the question of whether the lottery itself is a good or a bad thing. I think that we have largely finished with that argument, although there will always be echoes of it. We are now in danger of accepting that lottery funding is to be subsumed in general taxpayer, or Government, funding, and then used for what Ministers, bureaucrats or boards consider worthy purposes.

I say all this because I think that the Bill takes it for granted that the process is complete, and that there can be no further controversy about it. I am not ready to accept that proposition; I put it no higher than that. It appears to blur seriously the relative roles of Government and taxpayer, of the lottery and ticket buyers—what ticket buyers think is happening to their money is an important consideration—and of charities and community-based local activities. That last element was described eloquently by the hon. Member for Norwich, North. The Bill entails a risk of continued blurring of the distinction between those activities.

I have another reservation, which concerns the overall principle of endowment. That has been mentioned by other Conservative Members and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Norwich, North. It is apparently taken as read that endowment is a good thing, and the more we have of it the better. Whether private individuals who have taken out endowment policies, or endowment-linked policies, for their private provision would agree with that is an interesting question. Indeed, many hon. Members—probably more Labour than Conservative—have recently expressed reservations about endowment as a principle, mechanism or approach. I am not sure that it is as incontrovertibly beneficial as the Bill seems to suggest.

As has emerged from our exchanges so far, it is at least possible that from time to time, and in different circumstances, the endowment principle may not be appropriate. It may give rise to difficult choices and decisions. Given the money available to us for good causes now—I shall leave aside the source for the moment; I have already touched on that argument briefly—is it better to put a large proportion into an endowment from which we hope to receive a continuing beneficial income or to distribute those funds more widely among many causes for their immediate benefit? It is not self-evident that the endowment approach is necessarily better in all circumstances.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North said that, through his preferred mechanism, it would be possible to apply for an endowment and the decision involved would be exactly that—a decision. I merely say that, on the face of it, the decision will not necessarily be easy.

Did the right hon. Gentleman understand what I was saying? I said that it was not a case of "either/or"; both mechanisms were available, and the charities board, given its control, would decide whether the relevant endowment scheme, or any other scheme, was the best in the circumstances. We used the case of carers because it was obviously long term, but we are certainly not trying to prevent money from being spent quickly to benefit many people as he describes. Those are both mechanisms that we should use, and the board will control them.

I shall deal in a moment with whether the charities board, or indeed any board, is always the best authority to make such decisions.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is the choice that causes the problem. To make sense, an endowment fund must involve a large sum, especially at times of low yield and low interest rates. All I am saying is that I would not like to have to decide whether to sink a large amount of lottery money into an endowment—however worthy the cause—or to provide it immediately, in much smaller amounts, for the benefit of a much wider range of equally good causes. That is a difficult choice, and I do not envy those who must make it. We are talking about a difficult choice, and not about something that is necessarily obvious.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that NESTA's endowment is invested by the national debt commissioners in a combination of cash and short-dated, fixed-interest United Kingdom Government issues? The mechanism already exists, regardless of whether it returns 5 or 10 per cent. annually. We therefore already operate a very successful national endowment fund, which is called NESTA. Although we shall see how it operates over time, it currently yields more than £10 million annually, which by any account is good news for investment in the projects that it supports. It supports, for example, young people who may require only £5,000 to conduct a short-term scientific experiment. We have to meet that type of need.

If one says it fairly quickly, £10 million sounds like a lot of money. However, let us examine the size of endowment fund necessary to yield that £10 million. I would guess that the sum is not unadjacent to £100 million, and may be even more than that. However, what could we do with the £100 million that is yielding the £10 million for the excellent causes that the hon. Gentleman (11 scribed? That is the nature of the decisions that we have to take.

I never like to criticise my right hon. Friend, especially for his arithmetic. However, he will be aware that interest rates currently yield 6 per cent. It is therefore more likely that £180 million would be required to yield that £10 million.

I always defer to my hon. Friend in such sophisticated matters. However, he reinforces the point that I am trying to make and illustrates the choice facing us.

Speaking of wisdom, it was my hon. Friend who mentioned the recent great millennium fiasco. That was, in a different guise, another of the lottery-funded good causes in which boards, bureaucrats and well-meaning people decided what to do with large lottery sums. The result was the dome and a wobbly bridge. That does not gives me much confidence that the great, the good and the well-meaning and well-intentioned will always make the wise choices about how to use the money that those of us who assiduously buy lottery tickets—to say nothing of increasingly put-upon taxpayers—expect of them. Those elements are all combined in the Bill.

I recognise that the Bill is relatively limited in its scope and focused, for which I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Norwich, North. The Bill is, in a sense, uncontroversial in that it is shot through with motherhood and apple pie, which are the type of thing that appeal to the House. However, it also contains important questions that we should resolve before we rush forward.

I should like to flag up some issues to which we may have to give some attention later. Clause 1(2) states:

"the Charities Board may impose such conditions as they see fit"

in making a grant under section 38 of he National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Although I have no doubt that that is a proper approach to take, it places an enormous burden on the charities board to make appropriate and sensible decisions when it is granting the money. That could have considerable repercussions.

Even with that consideration taken into account, do not all the other lottery boards have the right to grant endowments`? Therefore, is it not anomalous that the National Lotteries Charities Board cannot do the same? The Bill is about remedying that anomaly.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, would not one approach be to remove that discretion from the other boards? If he is saying that we should make the charities board more like the Millennium Commission, I am not sure that I agree. I do not accept his assertion that, because the others do it, it is a jolly good idea for the charities board also to do it. For all I know, that might be a rotten idea. In fact, I suspect that, in some circumstances, it is a rotten idea.

I do not accept Labour Members' obsession with the one-size-fits-all approach, which they seem to like in the European Union and in all sorts of other things. I am a bit of a flexibility man myself. I like horses for courses. I like discretion and freedom. Such an approach therefore does not appeal to me. The hon. Gentleman, in trying to lead me down that road, asked, "Because the others do it, should not this board be able to do it?" To my mind, that is not a compelling argument.

As I said, the Bill states:

"the Charities Board may impose such conditions as they see fit".

I should like to flag up an issue that may be more for Committee or Report—whether the board can subsequently alter those conditions if it sees fit, and in what circumstances.

Clause 1(2) also states:

"The Charities Board may acquire and dispose of land for the purpose of enabling them to exercise their functions under this section."

I confess that such provisions always make me feel nervous. Although I shall for the moment leave to one side the matter of whether the Millennium Commission acquired the land on which the dome sits, or the dome itself, I am not convinced that it is necessarily a good thing that a body such as the charities board should be able to become a landowner or landlord. That is not self-evidently wise in such cases. Indeed, I can imagine that there may be some circumstances in which such an arrangement could be grotesquely unwise.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that such an arrangement is not new, but already exists in the National Lottery etc. Act 1998?

Again, that does not make it good. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that just because something has happened, we must repeat it in his Bill, that may be his judgment, but it is not necessarily the right approach. There may have been errors from which we should learn. We should not seek to repeat a mistaken approach simply because it has been done before. I do not find that argument compelling. What worries me about bringing the ability to acquire and dispose of land into the provisions is that it introduces a greater permanence and inflexibility that may not be entirely desirable. Certain elements of the Bill need further consideration.

I am sure that the Bill should receive a Second Reading so that we can consider it in more detail. I hope that it receives proper scrutiny in Committee and on Report as it involves such large sums of money. The fact that it is lottery money does not make that less important. These days we have to be accountable not just for taxpayers' money, but for the disposition and use of lottery money because it is our money, although, as we have given it voluntarily through buying tickets, it is a slightly different category from taxpayers' money. Nevertheless the sums involved are very large indeed, so it is incumbent on us to satisfy ourselves as far as we reasonably can that there are mechanisms to ensure that the funds are properly disposed of and accountable and that the flexibility allowed to those who make the decisions is appropriate. Having said that, I shall watch the progress of the Bill with interest to see that we all discharge our duty to make sure that it is fit for the purpose for which it was intended.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in supporting the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I begin by apologising to the House for my absence at the start of the debate. I had to host a meeting between the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and my local authority in seeking to persuade my right hon. Friend of the rightness of Harrow's case for more funding for a CCTV bid.

I support my hon. Friend's Bill and welcome the fact that it seeks to close a loophole and allow the National Lottery Charities Board to make grants to endowments of charities and other organisations. I know that the background to the Bill is the difficulties faced by the "We Care" 2000 appeal in establishing and getting lottery funding for an endowment fund to support carers in Norfolk. I should like to mention another example of an excellent community project which may well benefit from an endowment fund provided by the National Lottery Charities Board and to support the purpose of my hon. Friend's Bill.

I have six or seven district centres in my constituency, all of which have a strong sense of community. The people of Pinner have had to endure the sight of West house, a property that is surrounded by parkland, being in a dilapidated condition for much of the past 20 years. It is close to a residential area and the excellent West Lodge school. The fact that the premises have been dilapidated for so long undoubtedly spoils the amenity of the area. Clearly if West house could be brought back into community use it would be of enormous benefit to the people in the immediate environs of West house, the Pinner Memorial park and the school.

The house was originally owned by the Cutler family and was acquired by public subscription in the late 1940s as a memorial to the war dead of Pinner. The money was collected by subscriptions from local people, and there was a real sense of community ownership of the house.

The upstairs room was used as a shrine to the war dead, with a war memorial book recording on vellum the names of those who had perished in the two world wars. The rest of the house was used for a wide variety of community purposes, not least by the Workers Educational Association. It was also used as a park cafeteria. I have distant recollections of having attended band practices there in my youth.

In 1991, the then Tory-controlled Harrow council took the decision to close West house because of its unwillingness to put in the funds to restore it from its state of dilapidation. The building looks out over the heart of Pinner. From it, one can see the parish church, the station and the shopping centre. Since 1991, the excellent Pinner Association has been campaigning to get it back into use. It has been working in partnership with the council to improve Pinner Memorial park and has established a peace garden.

Various options for West house have been considered. One possibility that was canvassed for some time was to convert it into an exclusive restaurant. Another was to use it as sheltered housing. For a variety of reasons, neither of those ideas came to fruition. In 1995, the council, in partnership with the Pinner Association, established a West house working party, of which I was privileged to be a part in my former role as a Harrow councillor.

The working group drafted in consultants from Prometheus to produce a feasibility study on a proposal to establish a museum and art gallery on the site. With the work under way, the house has been used very occasionally, for instance for VE Day and millennium celebrations. The most significant progress was the approach by the William Heath Robinson Trust, which was seeking a location in Pinner for the artist's 500 to 600 works. Heath Robinson was an international artist, a humorous book illustrator famous for his cartoons and drawings of mad inventions. If he were alive today, he might design, as one of my constituents suggested, an instrument to allow a Member of Parliament to eat smoked salmon sandwiches while twisting the Prime Minister's arm to get more funds for Harrow.

Heath Robinson's ingenuity gave great enjoyment to many people. I am delighted to say that he lived in Pinner from 1912 to 1918, and the trust is keen to bring his collection back to Pinner, primarily for the enjoyment of the people of Pinner and Harrow, and to give the works a permanent home. Sadly, there is nowhere in the borough at present properly to hang an exhibition of either his or any other artist's works. We have the slightly bizarre situation of Harrow council and Harrow Heritage Trust having secured lottery money to create storage space at the nearby Headstone manor for all the works but still not having a permanent place in which to house them.

The consultants have drawn up plans of what a refurbished facility might look like. Stage one is to raise about £350,000 to bring West house back into permanent use, with a gallery for temporary art exhibitions, community rooms and a public cafeteria. Some £2 million is needed to complete an education centre and the permanent location to house more of the Heath Robinson collection.

The Pinner Association and Harrow council have undertaken a considerable amount of work. The Charity Commission has confirmed that a charitable trust to manage the West house estate will be established, and the association has organised a fund-raising campaign. I pay tribute to Martin Verden and Keith Schofield, the chair and vice-chair of that campaign, which in a short time has raised £35,000. If the Bill becomes law and the National Lottery Charities Board makes a grant towards an endowment, that will help those people who want to bring West house back into community usage. It will be good to have the funding to put the collection of the William Heath Robinson trust on public display.

I pay tribute to the Pinner Association, which has campaigned assiduously on the issue during the past 10 years, and, in particular, to its secretary, Cynthia Wells, for whom the project has been especially important. I know that the Bill's purpose is to remedy an anomaly and a problem that is faced by people in Norfolk who want to support carers. However, it holds out the prospect for people in Pinner of seeing West house brought back into use, as a museum for the Heath Robinson collection, helping to educate future generations of people who are born in my constituency. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.

I, too, congratulate my hon Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on his success in introducing the Bill and in bringing together so many people from all parties to support it. It is pleasant to spend a Friday morning dealing with a Bill that has such support, which is especially strong among MPs with Norfolk constituencies. I know how much work my hon. Friend has put into the project and recognise that it means a great deal to him and other hon. Members from that region. I am also grateful for his interpretation of the legal difficulties with benevolent and philanthropic law. As I am not a lawyer, I am pleased that my hon. Friend gave a detailed and incisive explanation of the differences. If the Bill goes into Committee, his work will be useful.

The Bill has been inspired by the "We Care" 2000 appeal, launched by the Eastern Daily Press in October 1998 with the aim of raising £1 million to establish an endowment fund—the Norfolk millennium trust for carers. I commend the hard work and dedication of everyone involved in the campaign, especially the staff and readers of the Eastern Daily Press. There is a huge number of unpaid carers and we would surely all agree that they are unsung heros and heroines who merit our admiration and support. I was struck by the way in which my hon. Friend read out the article about his constituent, Jemima Hutson. That strongly conveyed the huge amount of work, effort and love that carers put in to what they do, and the attention that their work requires.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) gave a moving account of his constituents, Christine and Tanya. We all have constituents who fit that bill. Perhaps that is one reason why there is cross-party support for my hon. Friend's Bill.

I want to point out how much national lottery support is going into Norfolk and how much the lottery is doing across the country to help carers and other groups of volunteers. Although it is only six years old, it has had a tremendous impact on our national life and is one of the most successful lotteries in the world. More than £8.8 billion has already been awarded to more than 82,000 projects across the country. The National Lottery Charities Board has made more than 40,000 grants, worth nearly £1.9 billion, to help meet the needs of those at greatest disadvantage in society and to improve the quality of life in our communities.

In Norfolk alone, the board has made nearly 500 grants, worth more than £19 million, to voluntary and community groups. They include a contribution of some £23,000, as has already been mentioned, towards the administrative costs of the "We Care" 2000 appeal. Across the United Kingdom, the board has already made grants worth more than £15 million to projects related to carers.

The current wording of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 allows the National Lottery Charities Board to help fund expenditure by charities or similar organisations but not to contribute towards endowment funds. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who apologised for having to leave before the end of the debate, asked if all the other distributors could do that. They can, which is why the situation is, in some senses, an anomaly.

The Government sympathise in principle with the changes proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), which would help to put the NLCB on the same footing as the other lottery distributors, enabling it to make grants towards endowments when it wished to do so. However, it is important to point out that the NLCLB, in common with all the other lottery bodies, makes its own decisions on individual grants, independent of Government. Should the Bill become law, it would therefore still be up to the board to decide how to use this new power. That might answer one of the points made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), although it is always very difficult to satisfy him completely.

The board would have a number of issues to consider carefully before deciding how to use the new power. An endowment must be of a considerable size to yield a reasonable annual income. Sometimes it is felt that lottery funds can provide greater benefits by directly supporting activities through specific, time-limited grants. In a way, the board would have the discretion to decide about that. Those running the "We Care" 2000 appeal clearly feel strongly that they could satisfy the National Lottery Charities Board if they were given the opportunity to do so. It is not really for us to be pedantic about whether the board would give an endowment grant to a particular charity, because such matters would have to be taken into account by the board. However, it does not seem sensible to me that one distributing body has different rules for a particular function and can do something if it thinks it right when another cannot.

Is there any appeal mechanism against decisions? The board could decide to put a very large amount of money indeed into an endowment—it would have to be large to yield any meaningful income—and a lot of other good causes would feel that they had been unreasonably and unfairly deprived of what they could otherwise have had. Do they have any appeal mechanism once the decision has been made and the money committed?

There is an appeal mechanism to the lottery distribution boards if a body or group does not get money. In the sports lottery distribution, for example, a number of groups make appeals and elicit the help of Members of Parliament in doing so. Much as it would be nice as a Minister to be able to decide where the money is to go, I am glad that we do not have to make that difficult decision. Through the powers that Parliament gives us, we appoint the members of these bodies, and we expect them to weigh things up and to realise the importance of their task.

Anyone who is against the Bill must say why the National Lottery Charities Board should be treated differently from the other lottery distributors under the current law.

I entirely agree that that is an anomaly. Does the Minister agree with me that if the £1 million target is achieved, about £50,000 a year—even at today's interest rates—is a significant sum for carers every year?

The right hon. Gentleman is right, it is a significant sum. The point about endowments is that they provide long-term benefit, sustainability and certainty. That is why they are an attractive mechanism for charities and other bodies.

The technical points will have to be dealt with in Committee. The Government recognise that the funding of endowments can be an appropriate use of lottery funds. We have already established the National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts under the National Lottery Act 1998 as a national endowment with £200 million of lottery funds. NESTA was set up as an independent, permanent fund to support and promote talent, innovation and creativity. It has so far provided funding for innovations in a wide range of areas, and for talented individuals in areas as diverse as interactive technology, poetry, film-making and science centres.

In addition, the Millennium Commission is establishing a £100 million endowment fund to ensure a permanent future for its highly successful millennium awards scheme. The scheme helps individuals to undertake projects that fulfil a personal ambition while benefiting the wider community. By 2004, 40,000 people will have benefited from that scheme, and the endowment will ensure that it continues to help individuals, which is what it is envisaged the millennium trust for carers and the "We Care" 2000 appeal will do.

I have no idea whether the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) was making his last speech to the House. He has had a long and distinguished career, and he was supportive of my hon. Friend's proposal. Indeed, it is amazing how the Members of Parliament in Norfolk work closely together in charitable giving and get involved in activities such as singing for charity. I am sorry that neither the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) nor my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) feel that they are physically active enough to participate in sport. I hope that the Government's policies on sport will help them to do so in future.

The right hon. Member for South Norfolk said that the NLCB offers grants for one year only. That is not right. Grants can be time-limited, and some are for two or three years. The NLCB will consider a maximum extension of up to six years.

The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and I have similar views on this issue. We support the Bill in principle, and the Government sympathise with the concerns expressed given what has happened. The hon. Gentleman will want to take up the technical suggestions that he has made when the Bill goes into Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) expounded on the value of one of the many projects in his constituency, at West house, providing an illustration of the difference that so many hon. Members have seen the lottery make in their communities. I am grateful to him for supporting the Bill.

The Government sympathise in principle with what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North is trying to achieve. We may wish to offer technical improvements should his Bill make further progress, but we shall not oppose it today.

With the leave of the House, I thank all those who have spoken so confidently and well about what I am trying to do. The Bill would be valuable to the people whom we represent, and I appreciate the support given to it. I hope that the speech made by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) was his last. This is the second time that I have had to compliment him, and I should not want to have to do so again.

In my youth, there were, on the variety boards all around the country, several farewell appearances from someone called G. H. Elliot, the chocolate-coloured coon. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that I may repeat that process.

That might be quite enjoyable.

The principle of the Bill, which appears to have been accepted, is that the National Lottery Charities Board should consider short and long-term money and benefits. I accept that the technicalities need to be hammered out in another arena, but the additional flexibility that the Bill will give to the board will enrich its work and be much appreciated by all the people who pay their pounds every day of the week to support lottery funding. I thank all those who have turned out to support the Bill. I cannot wait to get into Committee, though my haste has nothing to do with the date of the general election. Sooner or later, we shall go into Committee, and I hope to see all those present today on that occasion.

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

The Railways Act 2001 would sound very grand, though many hon. Members would like such an Act to be passed in a more radical form than my Bill. Many would support a Bill that would take Railtrack back into the public sector, but, because it is a private Member's Bill, the aim of my Bill is much more restricted than that. That said, it is a good Bill all the same.

My Bill would set up an inquiry that

"shall examine the effects of the existing system of ownership, control and management of the railway infrastructure".

It adds that that inquiry should look into alternatives to the existing structure, and that its results should be placed before both House of Parliament within two years.

We need that because there is great concern throughout the country that Railtrack—any reference I make to the rail infrastructure refers to Railtrack—is failing to deliver in so many ways that we need to seek alternatives.

It is customary for the promoter of a private Member's Bill to hold discussions with the Government on their attitude to the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman share with the House the result of any such conversation with the Government? Does he believe that he will have their support for his Bill?

The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait to hear the Government's reply for an answer to that question. I am conscious that he was one of those who pushed the privatisation of Railtrack through. I hope that he will have time to apologise to the House before we rise this afternoon.

The reason for the Bill is that the railways are in a mess. There is no doubt about that. We have almost a wartime service throughout the United Kingdom. If we had criticised the planned privatisation of the railways when we were in opposition by predicting that there would be speed restrictions throughout the country and that the railway infrastructure would fall apart, we would have been accused of scaremongering. When the Conservative Government introduced the Bill to privatise the railways no one believed that things would end up so bad.

My Bill asks the Government to prepare a report on the current ownership, control and management of the rail network and the alternatives. In my constituency, the fact that the railways are not working to anything like their former efficiency is a disaster. It is impossible to travel from London to Carlisle, do a day or half a day's work and come back on the same day. Yesterday, I went up to meet the Prime Minister to discuss the serious problem of the foot and mouth outbreak in Cumbria. It took me six hours to get to Carlisle. I had to catch a train two hours before I needed to. During that time, I could not do work that I would otherwise have done. It then took me six hours to get back. That was not so bad because I was on the sleeper. My father used to drive steam trains on the west coast main line, and train journeys took that time in his day.

I wrote to various organisations and interested parties about my Bill. I can put on the record some of the responses. I received one from the chief executive of Great North Eastern Railway. He wrote a thoughtful letter that was critical of Railtrack, but said that all that was needed was that Railtrack should appoint a first-class chairman. I do not accept that that is all that we need, so I was a little disappointed with that response.

I wrote to the managing director of Virgin Trains, Mr. Chris Green, a man whom I admire greatly. If we had more professional railwaymen like him in charge, we would not have the problems that we have today. He did not agree with my Bill and specifically opposed the option of giving the Government a golden share. He went on to list the things that were wrong with the railways and Railtrack in particular and how they should be put right. He said that things had to change and various adjustments had to be made to the system because it was not working.

I wrote to the RMT, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and ASLEF. They came back with a united voice; their campaign to take back the track is well known. They believe that the creation of Railtrack and the privatisation of all of the old British Rail has been a disaster. They believe that privatisation and the creation of Railtrack has reduced safety and siphoned money out of investment for profits, and that it has not worked.

I also received a letter from Tom Winsor, the Rail Regulator, for whom I have great admiration. He said that it was difficult for him to comment on record because several inquiries were going on into crashes. However, he sent me a copy of a letter in which he argued strongly against the regionalisation of Railtrack. He argued that it was not the right way to go.

I then got what I think was a letter from Sir Alistair Morton, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority. It was one paragraph long. I do not want to be over-sensitive, but it was an impertinent letter. I understand that several hon. Members have received impertinent letters from the SRA. I suspect that it will not do it any good in the long term to correspond in that way.

The final response was a two-paragraph letter from Mr. Steve Marshall, the new chief executive of Railtrack. The only defence he offers against changing the system is that further reorganisation of the railways at present would create more disruption. Surely, the chief executive of Railtrack could have made a clearer case as to why we should not have a report into alternative structures for the railway system. However, his sole defence was that it would cause more disruption so we should not consider it.

Most of those responses accepted that something radical needed to be done. Some accepted my Bill, while others opposed it.

What are the options? Transport 2000—a transport charity—commissioned six essays on the railway. The essays were issued last week; anyone who is interested in the railway should read them. I shall not go into them in detail, as I do not want to take up too much time.

The first argued for evolution rather than revolution. The author stated that, yes, there had been problems due to privatisation, but it had resulted in increased investment and more passengers. He argued that evolution rather than major structural change was needed.

Jimmy Knapp, the general secretary of the RMT, put the case for public ownership. He argued strongly that Railtrack had failed; there were safety problems and we should divert money from the shareholders either to be invested in the system or as profit for the Government.

A third essay argued for regionalisation of the railways based on the German model. That is a difficult idea to accept because we do not have the same structures in this country—we do not have regional government. Such a system would fail and create even more problems than there are at present.

The chairman of the train operators organisation argued that train operators should be given control of the system. I think the reason for that is that, under the original private railway system, the same companies owned the trains and the tracks. However, that, too, is not an option that should he taken up.

An interesting proposal was that Railtrack should become a non-profit-making trust with several stakeholders. I think it was based on the same principle as the Canadian air traffic control organisation. Safety would be given priority and any profits would be ploughed back into the infrastructure. That is a sensible alternative to bringing Railtrack back into the public sector.

The final essay argued that we needed fewer companies. Fewer players should be involved; we should simplify the system and go for bigger and better. Today, I do not argue for any of those options, but that the existing system needs serious examination. My Bill does that.

If I were the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), I should argue that the proposals in my Bill on the SRA are premature. The Government have set up the SRA and it is implementing policies that the Government want to see. To some extent, I accept that argument. That is why my Bill specifies a time scale of two years—that is important. The public—especially the travelling public—are angry about the current state of the railways; they want a commitment from the Government to bring the system back into the public sector although they accept that that will not happen. However, if the SRA solution does not work within two years, a radical alternative will be needed.

There are indications that the SRA is having problems. I read in the press today that one of the retiring members of the SRA has decided that he can stay there no longer and that Railtrack is

"holed below the waterline".

That is a very serious statement. I accept that the SRA has not had the time to carry out the work that is needed, but the Minister should consider that if it is no better in two years, a plan B must be ready to be implemented. I suspect that if the Minister accepts the Bill, that alternative will exist.

As the chairman of the west coast main line group, I have great admiration for Tom Winsor, whom I have met on several occasions. He is dynamic, and he wants to make progress, but there is a sense of frustration. He said again, only this week, that Railtrack should meet some deadlines and that he would force it to do so, but when asked whether he would fine it, he realised the pointlessness of the situation. If he fines Railtrack, it will have to ask the Government for more public money.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the Rail Regulator, but will the Bill affect the regulator's role in any way? I can see no explicit reference to that in the Bill. I should not have thought that the references to the

"ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure"

would necessarily encompass the regulator's role, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could help me.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that if the Rail Regulator were included, it would impinge on the final outcome of whatever decision the Government decide to take on the Bill. Obviously, if we decide to move forward, beyond the Bill, we will have to take a serious look at whether we need the Rail Regulator. I am sure that the provisions are correct in that context.

I do not know whether the Government will argue against the Bill, but they will argue against taking the railways back into the public sector, and I accept many of their arguments. For example, they say that it would cost £4 billion to take back Railtrack. The figure was £5 billion, but that was before the price of the stocks reduced considerably.

I met the previous chief executive of Railtrack before he resigned, probably last summer, and he suggested that he would be willing to accept a Government share in Railtrack. There is an argument that, without the Government, Railtrack is a bankrupt company; it depends totally on Government subsidy to keep going.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a feeling among the public that such a Government share in the present arrangements might improve not only the efficiency and management of the railways, but the social responsibility to those for whom the service is supposed to be provided?

My hon. Friend puts that argument well. The Government's argument is that if they had, for example, a 25 per cent. share, they would be involved in Railtrack, but not in control. A while ago, when deciding who should become the chairman of Railtrack was an issue, the Government were told to keep out and that the company would decide. The suggestion is that if the Government owned 25 per cent. of the share, they would still not have the necessary influence, but I think that we might be better able to control Railtrack in those circumstances.

The major disaster that took place after the Hatfield crash was Railtrack's response to it, because a very junior official in Railtrack closed the west coast main line, which runs through my constituency and into Scotland, without telling anyone. That created chaos for more than 24 hours. If the Government had been involved, I suspect that the decision on speed restrictions would also have taken account of the consequence of people using cars instead of trains. Car use is likely to lead to many more deaths than people travelling by train.

Railtrack took no consideration of that point; it took a very narrow view. It was shell-shocked at the time. The Transport Committee has recommended that someone on the board of Railtrack should know something about railways. That case made it apparent that no one did. There is a case for Government involvement, but my Bill is not about that; it is about considering that possibility.

I know that other Members wish to speak about the other Bills on the Order Paper and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) realises that it is very frustrating not to be able to speak on the Bill that one has introduced. Many years ago, I introduced a Bill dealing with the export of veal calves to the continent and some hon. Members read out the telephone directory in an attempt to stop me speaking on that Bill. I do not intend to do that.

A Minister has been prepared to come to the Dispatch Box to argue about this Bill. That is fine. We shall debate its provisions and come to a decision. However, the public demand that, once again, a Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and take responsibility for what is happening on the railways. Although we would not consider privatising the roads—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst might—that is exactly what we did to the railways. That was a disaster and it must be very frustrating for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that he is not able to get to grips with Railtrack and instruct it on what to do. That problem might be overcome by the Strategic Rail Authority, but the public and, I think, the House would like the Government to be involved. My Bill would not do that in itself, but it is a paving measure.

I know that other hon. Members with to speak about other Bills and I suspect that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wants to say something about this one. However, I make it clear that it is not my intention to divide the House, because I am sure that there are not enough Members in Parliament to get my Bill through. I think that this is a good Bill, but I do not want to waste time. Other Members should be able to speak about their Bills.

That was an interesting conclusion to the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Part of me hesitates to intrude on private grief among Labour Members, because, in a sense, this is an internal argument for them. However, it raises much wider issues and I take seriously the role that private Members' Bills play in our proceedings. Fridays such as this are parliamentary sitting days, the House is sitting and we are potentially making law. In fact, a short time ago, the House gave an unopposed Second Reading to a Bill on a completely different matter. The hon. Gentleman has brought his Bill to the House and it deserves the same attention as any other Bill.

If my Bill is likely to receive an unopposed Second Reading, I shall not withdraw it.

Of course, it is for any hon. Member to promote a Bill and decide whether to seek to divide the House on it. The promoter of the Bill has certain privileges, but he does not have a monopoly of them. Therefore, the House is entitled to take its view as to whether a Bill should proceed. I want to consider the Bill to see what I make of it.

The hon. Gentleman's Bill makes some interesting assumptions about the railways. Like a lot of Labour Members, he seems to look back to what he regards as the golden era of British Rail. That has always intrigued and fascinated me.

I am old enough to remember travelling on steam trains, which I used to do in my youth in Glasgow. It was an exciting experience for a young person. However, I have little memory of British Rail in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s being a paragon of efficiency and a model to which we would all aspire. Yet this has become the atmosphere in which Labour Members would like these debates to take place. They want us to have a fond memory of British Rail, as opposed to what they would say are the evils of privatisation.

Figures that I have suggest that in the 40 years from 1952, the share of passenger journeys made by rail fell from 17 per cent. to just 5 per cent., while the percentage of goods moved by rail dropped dramatically from 42 per cent. to 7 per cent. Even if one measures the success of the publicly-owned, state-run British Rail against the sort of criteria that Labour Members mention, British Rail failed dismally in almost every respect. It is common ground between us that there was a lack of investment in the railway system throughout those decades, when government oscillated between the Labour and Conservative parties. If there is shame or something to be admitted, we must all share in it. That, I suspect, is common ground. We must look at what the Bill proposes against that background.

As recently as 1995, the Labour party opposed rail privatisation, which is the Bill's target. In 1995, no less a figure than the present Prime Minister said that privatisation

"would replace a comprehensive, co-ordinated national railway network with a hotch-potch of privatised companies, linked together by a giant bureaucratic paper-chase of contracts, overseen, of course, by a clutch of new quangos".

There were some good Blairite soundbites there.

However, by the 1997 Labour election manifesto, the line had changed completely to say:

"The process of privatisation is now largely complete. Our task will be to improve the situation as we find it."

I do not sense that the spirit of the Bill is to improve the situation as the hon. Member for Carlisle finds it. I doubt whether that would be satisfactory to him. The whole thrust of the Bill suggests that he wants something more radical.

During what will probably be a lengthy speech, will the right hon. Gentleman outline whether he is happy with the fact that he voted for privatisation and whether he thinks it is a success? If it is not a success, why not? What are the alternatives?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me prompts, which are always useful. I am an avid supporter of private ownership and control as opposed to state ownership and control in all respects. I believe that private ownership is morally and operationally superior. I strongly supported the privatisation of the railways, as I supported the privatisation of so many other things undertaken by the Conservative Governments of Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). However, I will concede, with hindsight, that the way in which rail privatisation was carried out was not ideal and could have been better. In that respect, there is scope for revisiting the issue to see whether a better regime could be devised. Funnily enough, if I thought that that was the object of the Bill, I might be prepared to give it some positive consideration. However, since I suspect that that is not its motivation, I cannot support it.

I can see that it is a difficulty for the hon. Gentleman and his Front Benchers, rather than for me, that the Labour party felt obliged—apparently—to change its hostility to rail privatisation in 1995, as articulated by no less a person than the Prime Minister, to an acceptance of reality in 1997. I welcome that. It provides the background to the Bill.

I would claim that, in many respects, the railway network has improved considerably since privatisation. For example, the number of passenger journeys has increased, which, ironically, is one cause of the present problems on the railways. The system is almost a victim of its own success.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those data are now out of date?

Because of the Government's recent cock-ups, the trend has been momentarily interrupted, but until their grotesque overreaction to some tragic accidents on the railway, which I submit is the cause of most of our current problems, there had been a steady and welcome increase in the number of passengers and rail mileage after privatisation. The trend was there for all to see. In addition, domestic rail freight has increased, more trains are being run, rolling stock is being dramatically modernised and there are new stations and freight terminals. I will not go all the way through the catalogue, but it is an early indication of the justification for private, as opposed to public, ownership.

The whole reason the Conservative Government considered private ownership, control and management of the railway system was systematic under-investment over several decades. Indeed, the Bill, to which I will come shortly, makes mention of

"levels of investment in railway services".

To that extent, the outcome of the investigation and analysis proposed would be interesting. My submission would be that it is already evident, even without the proposed inquiry, that investment in the railways has improved significantly since privatisation, and continues to do so. The difficulty for those who argue for a return to public ownership and Government control is that history shows that rarely do a Government consistently over a period of time set aside sufficient funds for investment.

The background to the Bill is muddled. I am clear about my position and that of my party. We believed in the 1990s—and believe now—in the merits of private ownership, management and control. The governing party's position is not at all clear, although the Minister will no doubt shortly help us. The hon. Member for Carlisle and I await with bated breath his comment on the Government's attitude to the Bill. I am disappointed for the hon. Member for Carlisle that either he could not extract the Government's view from the Minister, or the Minister is too coy to tell the House. One way or another, all will be revealed when the Minister gets to his feet. Knowing him as I do, I expect that we shall hear a blunt and forthright expression of the Government's views. But, he should not rise just yet, because I shall now analyse the Bill.

My first problem with the Bill is that I am not sure that it is a proper role for statute to do what the very first line of clause 1 seeks to do and use the law to require the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry. Interestingly, that is an echo of the statement made not two hours ago by the Deputy Prime Minister on a different matter altogether, in which the very subject of inquiries and their status and relationship to Government came up. The Deputy Prime Minister, no less, said in his excellent statement—and in the course of his excellent replies to the questions that followed it—that he believed that the relevance and appropriateness of inquiries must always be a matter for proper discretion and judgment on the part of the Government and Ministers of the day. I agree with his view.

If that is indeed the case, I suspect that the Government will have a problem with the very first line of the Bill, which is at odds with what the Deputy Prime Minister told the House. I can see immediately that there is a potential conflict between the thrust of the Bill and the view of the Government, as expressed by no less a figure than the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Bill proposes that the Secretary of State "shall hold an inquiry". That, I feel is the wrong way in which to use statute. It goes on to say that the inquiry would be

"into the ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure"

in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman explained why he considered that necessary, but I do not consider it necessary.

I have said that I support privatisation as a concept and a policy, and I certainly do; but I am not necessarily prepared to defend the way in which railway privatisation was carried out. We knew at the time that there was a spectrum of possible methods. One method was selected, and, with hindsight, we may not consider it to have been the best.

The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the last Government. Did he make private representations about his reservations at that time? Will he give us more information about where the privatisation went wrong? Could it be that the Government pushed it through too fast because they wanted to get it through before the general election?

All those things are possible.

My role was not particularly glorious. At the time—around 1994–95—I was a relatively junior Minister working in the foothills of the Department for Education, which became the Department for Education and Employment, and doing my best for the country's schools, colleges and universities. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that a junior education Minister has a relatively minor input in matters such as privatisation of the railways. I am sure that if he consults the Minister later, he will learn that that is the case even now.

If we were to quiz the Minister about the niceties and intricacies of, say, the hospitals system or overseas aid, we would probably be given a dusty answer. The Minister would tell us, quite rightly, that he spends all his time looking after such things as the railways. I have no difficulty with that, or even any embarrassment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am unembarrassable anyway. However, the second part of his question is important and relevant.

I mentioned hindsight. We should probably look at the arrangements again, but not by means of an inquiry of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman. We should examine them in the normal way in which Government should examine how arrangements are working—perhaps even with the advice of the regulator. We should always be prepared to look again at the way in which matters as important as the railway network are structured, organised, managed and so on, but we should do so more through the regulatory regime than through—as the Bill suggests—a radical investigation of the

"ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure".

I have real difficulty with clause 1(1), which I believe is significantly misdirected.

The Bill goes on to set out in detail what would be, in effect, the terms of reference of the inquiry that the hon. Gentleman seeks by law to establish and impose on the Secretary of State of the day. He proposes that the inquiry

"shall examine the effects of the existing system of ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure"—

in other words, privatisation and Railtrack, very largely—on, first, public finances.

That is the crux of the matter. What the Government will have to grapple with, and what the hon. Gentleman rather slid over, are the implications of a radical change to, in particular, the ownership—let us leave aside control and management for a moment—of the railway infrastructure in terms of public finances.

The hon. Gentleman should come clean, and I shall give him the opportunity to do so if he wishes to take it. Is he suggesting in any way that the railway infrastructure should be taken back into public ownership? If so, there would be a very considerable implication for public finances. Does he want his inquiry to examine that issue? Some people would think that that is the hidden agenda behind the Bill.

Some of the people whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech are enthusiastic about that idea. I do not have much to do with trade unions in the usual course of events, although I suspect that he has much to do with them, and good luck to him if he does. However, I wonder whether they are urging him, through the Bill, to press the Government to bring back into public ownership the railway infrastructure.

I thought that I made it clear at the beginning of my speech that I wanted to introduce a Bill to achieve what the right hon. Gentleman has described. However, my constituents, and not the trade union movement, are behind the Bill. I represent a city with a tremendous railway history, and the railway people in my city realise that we now have a mess that makes BR look very good in comparison. I suspect that his constituents also are behind the Bill. I imagine that his constituents who are delayed on commuter lines on their way to work are fed up with current arrangements, and that they are among those who want the railways taken back.

I would be astonished and profoundly shocked if the people of Bromley and Chislehurst wanted BR back. I also doubt that socialism has lingered sufficiently in Carlisle for the good burghers of that city to want BR back.

I am surprised at this, because I respect the hon. Gentleman's knowledge in these matters, but I think that he is confusing the effects of privatisation as such with recent events in which Government mismanagement—probably coupled with a combination of some mismanagement by Railtrack, pressure by Government and Railtrack, and the intervention of the regulator—has led to lamentable railway performance. That is not the result of privatisation as such. He and I will have simply to disagree on that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give a reason other than privatisation for the lamentable performance? Privatisation has created the difficulties and utter chaos that I have to face when travelling from Leeds. Privatisation is the reality that we have to manage. Railtrack would have difficulty organising—I do not know how best to say this—a short period of intoxication in a brewery, and it is certainly having difficulties in organising its railway services.

That may be true. I do not want to digress unduly, and the matter may be for another occasion, but I suspect that that has everything to do with the Government's tendency to micro-manage, overreact and panic, and the relationships that they have developed and imposed on the regulator, Railtrack and the operating companies. Those are complex relationships, and I believe that the Government have got them completely wrong. I suspect that the blame—if we are going to get into this ghastly blame culture, in which we all wallow almost constantly these days—has to be shared among all those participants. That is why I am resisting the suggestion which Labour Members seem to want to make that privatisation per se is responsible for the current poor performance of the railways. On that, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) and I will have simply to disagree.

I was talking about clause 1(2)(a), which explicitly mentions the public finances. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will tell us whether the Government believe that the public finances could be used to bring back the railway infrastructure into public ownership. That is obviously what some Labour Members—perhaps many Labour Members, for all I know—want. We have to know right at the start whether the inquiry that the Bill would impose on the Government would have any chance of succeeding in relation to clause 1(2)(a) on the public finances. There is no point in our proceeding much further than that until we have some indication from the Government about whether that is case.

Clause 1(2)(b) refers to the levels of investment in railway services. Unless the hon. Member for Carlisle corrects me, I assume that the provision widens the scope of the Bill to include railway services. It could apply to rolling stock and so on, and rightly so because in making an assessment of management, ownership and control we cannot divorce the infrastructure from the services. However, the provision broadens the scope of the Bill considerably and must inevitably bring in considerations affecting the operating companies as well as those affecting Railtrack.

The levels of investment are a crucial consideration. Apart from the moral case for private ownership that I mentioned earlier, the primary purpose of privatisation was to attract investment. Without doubt, privatisation—whether it involves telecommunications, railway services or anything else—has demonstrated over the decades that if an industry is turned over to private ownership and control and properly managed, it can attract a higher level of investment and therefore provide a much better service. So, an interesting question to pose in respect of clause 1(2)(b) is what are or have been the levels of investment in railway services. The Minister's response will be helpful in assessing whether the Bill is necessary.

When we talk about public finances or levels of investment, we are on relatively firm ground, but clause 1(2)(c) refers to the efficiency and effectiveness of railway services and that is much more difficult territory. A common fault in government—and even here in the legislature—is to use such terms as efficiency and effectiveness as if we all knew exactly what they meant. However, I am not sure that that is entirely clear in the context of railway services. Recent events have illustrated that all too well—some may say all too tragically. For example, how does one balance considerations of frequency of service, timeliness, promptness of arrival and passenger security with passenger safety? Let me make a distinction. When I talk about passenger safety, I refer to the traditional approach to the number of deaths and injuries that are caused per passenger mile.

We do not often talk about passenger security, but I believe that one factor that deters many people from using the railway services on short-haul commuter journeys and long-haul intercity journeys is the risk that they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that they may be subject to abuse or attack. That particularly affects women and those travelling late at night. How does one factor all that into efficiency and effectiveness? They are very real considerations for passengers.

As a railway passenger, I am interested in a variety of different factors affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of the railway services. I certainly take into account the frequency of the services. The hon. Gentleman complained about the infrequency and unreliability of the service from Carlisle, but he did not complain about feeling threatened. It may be that the service runs so rarely and so few people use it that he is almost on his own and there is nobody to threaten him. I am much more familiar with the commuter services, on which such matters are a real consideration, particularly late at night.

Am I looking at the issues as a taxpayer or as a passenger? Inevitably, we are all both and we want the facility to take into account as taxpayers and as rail users what we would like in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, frequency, timeliness, security and safety and fares. They are all important considerations. Therefore, I am at a loss as to just how efficiency and effectiveness will be defined in the Bill without knowing a lot more about what is in the minds of the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, the Minister.

The Bill then moves on to the cost and safety of railway passenger services and services for the carriage of goods.

Cost is a simple word, but it encompasses some complex notions and variables. The cost to whom—the taxpayer, the community at large, the environment, the passenger or all of those? Logically, it must be all of them. The scale of the inquiry is starting to burgeon, so one wonders how long it will take—we will have to consider further the time limit suggested in clause 2.

What I had intended to call the hidden agenda is in fact contained explicitly in clause 1(3):

"The inquiry shall consider whether alternative systems of ownership, control and management of railway infrastructure would provide greater benefits."

Let us examine what that might mean. "Alternative systems of ownership" is a dead giveaway. The idea is to take the railway infrastructure back into public ownership. Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea of the likely cost and of where the money would be found? The Chancellor keeps boasting about how much extra money he has. We all know that, because he has taken it from us in tax, and we feel every penny of it. Then he says that much of it has gone into national debt repayment. Lady Thatcher must be delighted. Having spent all that money, is he going to re-borrow it to fund railway infrastructure renationalisation?

"Alternative systems of ownership" conjures up intriguing possibilities. Are we talking about variations on the theme of private ownership or about full-blown public ownership? The clause also refers to "control and management". Does that allow the inquiry to extend to the role of the regulator? Whether the regulator controls or manages is open to question. If the inquiry does not cover the regulator, we cannot have a comprehensive look at the system. There is an unfortunate element of doubt about what was intended.

All that pales into insignificance when one comes to the phrase "would provide greater benefits". That may seem easy enough to assess, but such a simple phrase usually conceals more than it reveals. Benefits to whom: the passenger; the taxpayer; people who do not use the railways; or someone else? How on earth does one provide a framework in which greater benefits can be assessed? Given the role that the railway network and infrastructure play in our daily lives, all or any of us can be affected in many different ways. We have to consider the cost of moving freight; the cost to passengers; our safety and well-being; and the claimed environmental advantages of rail. How much do we take such matters into account and what weight do we give them? People do not often rate them equally. For example, if I rarely used the railway system, as a taxpayer, I might want less of my taxes going to subsidise it, and passengers to pay more. However, a regular passenger would be entitled to take the opposite view. Someone who is concerned about the environment and pollution would have a different view of the railways from a person for whom those are not important. I might be indifferent to the railways.

I accept that it is the Government's role to make a judgment about such matters. I hope that the Minister will help us when he responds. We need to know how the Government interpret the simple phrase "would provide greater benefits". Where will their emphasis lie when they approach that difficult problem? We have our own preferences. I suspect that mine are different from those held by the hon. Gentleman and the Government, but we should know where we stand. We do not even know whether the hon. Gentleman's view of benefits is the same as the Government's. He did not spell that out because he was so anxious to sit down and let other debates take place, in his typically generous way. We are no further on with regard to that matter.

Clause 1(4) is a seductive subsection. The stipulation that

"The inquiry shall take into account the views of … users of railway passenger services … users of services for the carriage of goods … operators of railway assets"

and other such persons is an attractive notion. It has become fashionable in government to take account of the views of surveys, focus groups—referendums even. They could all he covered by the broad phrase,

"shall take into account the views of".

However, it would be difficult to take account of the views of users of railway passenger services because I imagine that they vary enormously. Suppose that I travelled on the train to Carlisle with the hon. Gentleman and we went up and down the carriages asking people about their priorities, and that the hon. Gentleman then travelled with me on the swift and efficient service between central London and Bromley and we asked fewer questions—because we would have much less time. I suspect that we would get different responses.

It is taken as read that everyone would like a service that is fast, cheap, safe and arrives on time. However, to get underneath that, we would have to ask people how much they were prepared to pay, how crowded they were prepared to be and how they rated safety and security over price. There could be an armed guard in every carriage to make people feel really safe, but that would be expensive. Each lady passenger could be personally escorted by a railway employee, if that made her feel better, but that would also be expensive. Simply to say that we will take account of the views of users of railway passenger services does not take us as far down the track as the hon. Gentleman imagines.

That is even less true when one considers the

"users of services for the carriage of goods by railway"—

freight, in other words. There must be interesting different views about priorities with regard to the scale of the network. As a layman, I have always suspected that more freight is not moved by rail because the rail network is limited and inflexible in comparison with the road network. One way to deal with that would be to reverse Beeching. There are probably not many other hon. Members present who can remember the good Dr. Beeching. I studied his report when I was at university, which was between 1962 and 1966. Dr. Beeching had become famous not long before for wielding his axe and reducing dramatically the scope of the rail network. One of the results of that process was that the level of service that could be offered to freight users was severely limited and the amount of freight carried was therefore reduced.

Against that background, a lot of the

"users of services for the carriage of goods by railway"

as clause 1(4)(b) so quaintly puts it, might have a very different view. Some might want their goods to be taken on a much more comprehensive rail network to all conceivable parts of the British Isles. Some might want a very fast service, while others might want it to be as cheap as possible. One can imagine a wide variety of views. Where would that leave us in trying to take those views into account?

The operators of railway assets will have different views altogether. No doubt they would see the matter, quite properly, in terms of their shareholders, their profitability, their ability to reinvest in the service and their ability to attract greater numbers of passengers and a greater volume of freight. Those would all be relevant considerations for the rail operators who would rightly and legitimately have a different perspective from that of the passengers and the freight users.

Clause 14)(d) refers to the old favourite:

"such other persons or organisations as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate."

The mind boggles, but the Minister may be prepared to lift the curtain and allow us to peep through into the Secretary of State's mind as to what other persons or organisations the right hon. Gentleman might see fit to consult. The number of organisations could, on the one hand, be fairly limited, such as the rail users' organisations or simply people closely related to the rail system. On the other hand, almost any organisation could be included, such as environmental organisations, local authorities—goodness knows who. It would be useful if the Minister could give us an idea of how far he believes the scope of clause 1(4)(d) might take us in finding out views on these matters.

Once we had taken into account the views of all these different people, how would we put those views together and make sense of them, particularly if they were—as inevitably I think they would be—in conflict with one another? I know that it is trendy, modern and inclusive to use phrases such as

"take into account the views of"

but I have always had my doubts as to whether doing so would be of real value.

It has just occurred to me that the one group with probably more influence than any others would be the focus group. We know that focus groups largely determine what the Government do and think. We know that they decide, very substantially, the thinking in No. 10. Would focus groups be included in the list, I wonder? There must be somewhere to fit them in. Yes, it would be under clause 1(4)(d):

"such other persons or organisations".

Is the Minister going to tell us when he sets about interpreting clause 1(4)(d) that he believes that focus groups would have a proper and legitimate role in deciding what should be done?

Then we come to clause 2. The good news is that when all this excellent work has been done, the Secretary of State will lay copies of the report before each House of Parliament. We should be grateful for that. He will also

"make the report of the inquiry publicly available by such other means as he sees fit".

I still believe in the good old printed page. I hope that by the time this happens, if it ever does, there will be no nonsense about websites and the like. I have never consulted a website in my life—I do not know how to and I hope I never have to. I hope that instead we will have a nice chunky report, printed on paper and available in the Vote Office. At least Members of Parliament will then be able to have a good look at it on the written page. I hope that it will be properly available to the public on the same basis.

It worries me that clause 2 says that the report should be laid before Parliament and made publicly available

"within two years of the date of commencement of this Act."

The hon. Gentleman wants the result of his excellent Bill to be available as soon as possible, but I am worried about the placing of such an artificial time constraint on this important work. Is two years enough to do justice to the work that I have described? I have skipped through the Bill only in the most skimpy detail. I could have spent much more time on each of the provisions in clause 1, but I did not want to delay the House unduly. In the brief and sketchy summary that I have given, there was more than enough scope for an inquiry to last a considerable time. If it is to be done properly, an artificial time limit of two years from the outset is a misjudgment.

The hon. Gentleman desperately wants the inquiry to be carried out as quickly as possible—presumably he wants to put the Government on the spot—magically to improve the service between Carlisle and London. He would argue that if we changed the ownership of the railway infrastructure he would have a better time travelling from Carlisle to London. The hon. Gentleman may not have to travel from Carlisle to London for much longer. I saw him on television last night, and an insensitive person from the television station referred to his majority and an upcoming election. I would not dream of doing that.

I am sure that I shall be re-elected. I have no intention of joining the chicken run.

I am sure that that is a relief to every other constituency in the country. We shall leave that judgment to the people of Carlisle in the election, which is or is not about to happen. No one seems to know because the Prime Minister cannot make up his mind.

I was querying whether two years is a sufficient time in which to conduct such an important and comprehensive inquiry. I have serious reservations about that. I do not think that it is.

Clause 3—"Inquiry procedure: supplementary"—bothers me somewhat, because it says:

"The Secretary of State may by direction make provision supplemental to that contained in sections 1 and 2 in relation to the procedure to be followed by the inquiry."

I am not sure whether the clause is necessary. I do not believe that Bills that could become law should contain otiose provisions. If the Secretary of State is required to hold an inquiry, as set out in detail, I doubt whether we need to say that he may make provision supplemental to that contained in clauses 1 and 2. Those clauses contain catch-all provisions such as subsection (2)(e), which refers to

"such other matters as the Secretary of State may prescribe"

and subsection (4)(d), which refers to

"such other persons or organisations as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate".

Given the scope of those provisions, I doubt whether clause 3 is required.

The Bill may seem innocuous at first glance, but it provides for a wide-ranging and costly inquiry that I do not think would be very fruitful. We already have mechanisms, such as rail users consultative and representative bodies, the Rail Regulator, company law, which provides a framework within which the railway operators work, and the Health and Safety Executive. Whether such an inquiry would bring any improvement at all remains to be seen.

Although the hon. Member for Carlisle was a little too coy to say so, I am sure that he is really after the return of British Rail. If that is so, it is incumbent on the Minister to be open about how the Government see that idea and about where it might lead us. I have already quoted the Labour party manifesto from the last election, which said:

"The process of privatisation is now largely complete … Our task will be to improve the situation as we find it".

Those words are not at one with the aims of the Bill before us.

I have, I hope, raised a few pertinent questions and given the Minister some material to get his teeth into. look forward to hearing what he will say so that the House of Commons may judge whether the Bill deserves our support.

This has been an interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke with obvious conviction, and I thank him and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for their contributions. I recognise the concerns so clearly articulated in the debate, but the Government cannot support the Bill. I will clarify why that is so. Some, though not all, of the reasons for our response became apparent during the debate.

Since Hatfield, several options for restructuring the management and operation of the national rail network have been put forward, particularly in relation to the future ownership of Railtrack. I shall deal with each of them in turn. The Government have made it clear that we have no plans to bring Railtrack back into public ownership. To do so would probably take a couple of years and involve complex and controversial primary legislation. During that time, the industry would effectively be paralysed.

Bringing Railtrack back into public ownership would cost the taxpayer around £ 4 billion at the current stock market valuation—I appreciate that the stock market is a movable feast at present. but that is the approximate price. None of that would be spent on rail investment, since it would all go towards compensating shareholders.

After years of instability caused by the break up of the railway system into more than 100 separate companies, the Government do not wish the industry to undergo further years of upheaval. That would be in no one's interest. It would divert valuable public resources that would be better spent on direct investment in improvements and expansion. We believe that over-hasty privatisation left the system with real problems, but our task remains to deal with the railways as we found them and to make sure that they operate in the public interest.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst seemed anxious that we should all share in the blame for what happened, but invited us to accept that he himself was guarding the foothills of the Department for Education and Employment at the time. He was not, he implied, responsible—his way of saying with a bit of extra flair, "Not me, Guy". The right hon. Gentleman was, however, a member of the then Government, and I believe that collective responsibility was supposed to apply. He should at least be prepared to accept that he was part of the process. If he wants to share the blame with anyone, he should share it with the people with whom he was in power.

Oh, all right then.

Thank you.

The Government's present stance reflects the decision taken at the last Labour party conference. Acquisition by the Government of a minority shareholding in Railtrack would not give us control over the company's policy. Under company law, stakeholders have a fiduciary duty to put the interests of the company first, not their own.

The Government would not be able, for example, to use a 25 per cent. stake in Railtrack to force decisions in line with Government policy. As a minority shareholder, we would not have control of the company or its policy. We would therefore have responsibility without power. Rather than increasing control over Railtrack, an equity stake in the company could result in the Government seeming to be complicit in all Railtrack decisions—including those taken in the interests of the majority of shareholders, which may be at odds with public policy. It is better management and planning which will deliver improved performance for the company.

Support has been articulated today for converting Railtrack into a public non-profit stakeholder trust. Under this option, the company would be run by a Government-appointed stakeholder board of train operators, the Strategic Rail Authority, customers, employees and so on, with no single party exercising majority control.

However, a public trust would almost certainly be subject to public expenditure controls. It would not guarantee the necessary investment without having to find it from public resources, which we believe would be better invested in education and health, for which no alternative sources are available.

The requirement on the Government to underwrite the bond issue to purchase Railtrack from the current shareholders would impose a further potential burden on public expenditure. Buying out shareholders would divert funds earmarked for investment. The costs of non-commercial projects, cost overruns and poor performance would fall to the taxpayer, rather than to operators and customers. The inability to offer a return to investors would reduce Railtrack's current access to private investment capital.

It is far from clear that the proposed composition of the stakeholder board, in which none of the partners has a majority, would facilitate policy agreement or decision making, or that the engineering and asset management skills fundamental to improving safety and raising train performance would predominate.

There is a role for stakeholder input, but this is at the strategic level when plans are being drawn up by the Government and the Strategic Rail Authority. The role of the Railtrack board is to deliver the infrastructure element of these plans, not to decide what they are.

Splitting Railtrack geographically would produce further fragmentation at a time when it is generally accepted by the industry that the overriding need is to achieve coherence. It would further reduce the company's ability to raise capital for investment.

The concept of vertical integration—to enable franchises to include operational responsibility for track—has also found recent support. However, this would reduce the autonomy of franchisees and undermine the current and proposed franchises. It would complicate the role of the Rail Regulator and might result in the promotion of regional interests ahead of the delivery of a national strategy for a renaissance of our railways. It is not clear how vertical integration of passenger franchises would help cross-franchise operators such as freight.

I share the conviction of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle that mistakes were made in the privatisation process. Indeed, since Hatfield the architects of that process have admitted that they got it wrong. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst came pretty close to admitting it today. But after years of fragmentation and instability, the answer is not yet more upheaval. What we now need is evolution rather than revolution.

The Government believe that the major changes proposed today to Railtrack's ownership, operation and accountability are not necessary to ensure that the company meets its public service obligations. We have appointed a tough Rail Regulator to ensure that Railtrack delivers on its licence requirements and does not abuse its monopoly position.

We are not keen to implement options that entail reorganisation, upheaval and the loss of management focus and strategic direction, or increase the Government's costs as a result of compliance with market rules governing share acquisitions—knowledge of our intention to acquire Railtrack stock would drive up the company's share price. Instead, the Government have decided that the time is better spent putting in place the new coherent industry arrangements contained in the Transport Act 2000 and that the money is better spent as part of the £60 billion provided for in our 10-year plan for transport, published last July.

The Prime Minister made it clear last month that the only way to cure the problems on the railway is through proper strategic control and urgently needed investment. We have created the Strategic Rail Authority to tackle fragmentation and to provide strategic leadership. We are working hard to correct decades of underinvestment through our 10-year plan.

The Government's interest is to ensure that Railtrack implements the national track recovery plan as it has promised, following the disruption from gauge corner cracking, and that it invests in a safer, punctual and efficient railway, backed by the massive investment programme in the 10-year plan.

The issues proposed for review by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle have already been covered by a recently undertaken parliamentary inquiry—that of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs into rail investment—to which my noble Friend the Minister for Transport gave oral evidence on 12 December. The Transport Sub-Committee's report is expected shortly. Because of that and for the reasons that I outlined, the Government will oppose the Bill.

In view of the Minister's response, but, more important, for reasons of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

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

The Bill is simple in intent—even though it has a long title. Although the Opposition Benches are sparsely attended, I hope that no Members on either side of the House will oppose the measure. In essence, it corrects an injustice that should never have arisen.

The purpose of the Bill is to permit a man's name to be entered as a child's father on the birth register and on the long birth certificate when a child has been born following infertility treatment or in vitro fertilisation after the man has died. For example, that may be because the man's sperm or an embryo created using his sperm was stored before his treatment for cancer or other medical conditions and he died subsequently. Another reason may be that infertility treatment had already begun, the man died suddenly but the treatment continued.

I can give the House no clearer example of such circumstances than those of Stephen and Diane Blood. In 1995, Stephen lost his fight for life after contracting meningitis; he was 30 years old. He had given consent for his wife, Diane, to undergo fertility treatment, using his sperm, after his death. Diane fought for the right to receive that treatment. It was almost four years—after numerous legal battles and much anguish—that her son, Liam Stephen, was born on 11 December, just before Christmas 1998.

Diane's fight for the right to have Liam Stephen drew widespread media attention and public support. Indeed, in opinion polls—we are all keen on them in this place—on whether Diane should be allowed to continue her treatment, she received 90 per cent. support for that right.Hansard records the involvement of the House on several occasions.

That fight was not limited only to the right for treatment. Even after Liam's birth, his father's name could not rightly be recorded on the birth certificate. The effect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is that it does not allow a man to be treated as the father of a child where his sperm, or an embryo created with his sperm, is used after his death.

Currently, the birth certificates of children born in such circumstances show a blank entry or a line alongside the mother's name. A letter from Joanne Tarbuck—a mother thus affected—to the Department of Health in April 1999 points out:

"Despite undergoing two years of counselling before I was allowed to try for mine and Martin's baby, I was unaware that my husband's name would not be permitted on the birth certificate. I was therefore extremely upset to learn of this for the first time when I went to register Jonathan's birth. This does not seem fair on him or on other children born in similar circumstances."

That is the injustice which we seek to address under the Bill.

Although the Bill would amend the 1990 Act, it is not in essence deeply involved in the ethics or the moral debate that surrounds such procedures. It is a simple and straightforward measure, in which the rights of children to have their fathers properly recorded in the birth register are recognised as foremost.

We may ask why the anomaly was not discovered during the consideration of the 1990 Act. Under that Act, sperm can be stored for 39 years. It was thus recognised at the time that if legal rights—for example, those involved in succession or inheritance—were to accrue and a child was born perhaps many years after the death of the father, it would become almost impossible to wind up that man's estate. Under the Bill, therefore, the needs of those children and their families would be addressed without affecting the current law on succession and inheritance.

There are 30 such children today, but that number is expected to grow at a rate of at least 10 a year—it could be much higher—and the Bill is of considerable importance to their mothers. Two of the mothers affected-Diane Blood and Joanne Tarbuck—are with us in the House today, together with their children and families. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their resilience over the years.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), who has championed the case of her constituent, Marion Jordan, and her son, Daniel, in the House on numerous occasions. I thank her for the work that she has done in allowing us to get this far.

Following the case of Diane Blood, the previous Government instigated a review of the 1990 Act. The review was undertaken by Sheila McLean, who is professor of law and ethics in medicine at Glasgow university. Professor McLean made several recommendations in her report, among which was the proposal that the father's name should be allowed to appear on a child's birth certificate. In recommending that course of action, Professor McLean considered that the current restriction may not be compatible with the 1979 United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

Article 2.1 of the UN convention states that the rights accorded to each child, as set out in the convention, should be respected without discrimination of any kind, including that involving the child's birth or any other status. I share that view.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments about myself in relation to my constituent Marion Jordan and her son Daniel. Does he agree that the rights of the child should be paramount and that the Labour Government have put child-friendly policies—and, indeed, money—where their mouth is? However, there has been no movement on this issue to date, so my hon. Friend's Back-Bench initiative is to be welcomed. Does he also agree that the proposal is the morally correct, the legally correct and, frankly, the humane thing to do?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. This is more than simply a moral question; legal questions also need to be answered. The Bill, if passed, would easily answer the challenges that may accrue from those parents if the Bill is not successful.

In addition to my reference to the UN convention on human rights, I shall comment on the issues that may arise under articles 8 and 14 of the European convention on human rights. Those articles deal, respectively, with the rights to choose or discover who one is and the enjoyment of rights without discrimination at birth. Those concerns would be dealt with under the Bill.

The suffering caused to those families is unnecessary and avoidable. We must remember that those women suffer not only from the bereavement of their husband or father of their child, but because they feel that the absence of the father's name on the child's birth certificate robs those men of legitimate recognition.

To assist the House, I shall outline the circumstances in which the Bill can be applied. It mirrors the current provisions in the 1990 Act that provide for a man to be treated as the father of the child when he is still alive. The four circumstances outlined in the Bill are as follows. The first relates to when the couple were married before the man's death and the woman uses his sperm or an embryo created with his sperm to conceive a child after the man's death. Diane Blood would have fallen into that category, and that is covered by the proposed subsection (5A).

Secondly, the circumstance in which a couple were not married but were being treated together before the man's death and the woman uses his sperm or an embryo created using his sperm to conceive a child after the man's death is listed as the proposed subsection (5B). Alternatively, the circumstance in which a couple were married and the embryo was created before the man's death using donor sperm and the woman uses the embryo after the man's death to conceive a child is covered by proposed subsection (5C). Finally, the circumstance in which the couple were not were married but were being treated together in the United Kingdom at a licensed clinic where an embryo was created using donor sperm and it is used after the man's death to conceive a child is covered by the proposed subsection (5D).

Under the Bill's provisions, the mother may elect, within 42 days of the child's birth, for the man to be recorded on the birth register. The registrar will require proof of the treatment undertaken and that can be provided by any medical practitioner. The provisions are also retrospective and can be satisfied in any case, where relevant, on or after 1 August 1991, which is when the 1990 Act came into force.

The Bill would also amend section 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, adding to the categories covered by that Act. That simply means that on a certificate of birth, after the father's name, the words "pursuant to section 10" would be added. Anyone looking at the register in future would be able to discover from the wordings of the proposed subsections (5A), (5B), (5C) and (5D) the reason why the birth was registered under that section.

The Bill would extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales. I am glad to say that it has been welcomed by the devolved Parliament and Assemblies.

Under the Human Rights Act 1998, Ministers are required to make a statement expressing whether the Bill is compliant with the convention. I believe that the provisions are not only compliant but support the Act's intentions.

I have sought to highlight the unusual case of families, who under the current provision, are not permitted to write and record the name of the husband or father alongside the name of the child's mother on a certificate of birth. It would be of great comfort to the child's wider family and to future generations of the families that the truth should now be recorded.

I leave the penultimate words on the matter to Diane Blood. In a letter sent to me, she said:

"Those who have lost someone dear to us know how precious time is. You only get to live once. Why grow up being officially recorded as illegitimate, when the alternative has been agreed? When Liam is asked, say maybe at school, for a passport or for hospital records, 'who is your father?' I'd rather he wasn't left confused by what answer he is allowed to give."

I firmly believe that it is right and fitting that we should support the Bill. I commend it to the House.

The Government strongly support and welcome the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) and I commend his clear and well-argued speech in favour of it.

The Bill would bring into effect some of the recommendations in the McLean review that the Government accepted last year. We set out then our intention to introduce legislation, but we have a tight parliamentary timetable this Session. That is why I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend has taken up the issue and introduced the Bill.

The Bill provides for the father's name to be entered on the child's birth certificate when his sperm or an embryo created with it is used after his death. These are not common circumstances; we should be thankful that they are not, for they are inevitably tragic and difficult for the few families concerned. For those few families, this is an extremely important issue about which they feel passionate. The obstacles placed in the way of getting legal recognition for the father of the children are unfair and insensitive.

To be faced with that insensitivity, as well as the frustration of what is in effect an outdated law, can only compound the distress that those families face at a time when they are trying to look forward and celebrate the new life of a child. That is why it is right to change the law. That is why the Bill is right and why we wish it a speedy passage through the House.

Is my hon. Friend aware that visiting the House today are two little boys to whom, as the law stands, we are legally saying, "You do not have a father"?

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I pay tribute to her for her work on the issue and the representations that she has made on behalf of constituents who have been affected by the existing law. That is why it is right to make the Bill retrospective, and not simply so that it affects future families facing those circumstances.

The Bill applies where couples have decided to have children through IVF but when the man, sadly, has died before the treatment is completed; perhaps when he has stored sperm or where the embryos have been created but not yet implanted. Their intention to start a family is clear but, sadly, the man has died through illness or accident before the embryos can be implanted.

In the circumstances, the widow faces a double loss; the loss of her partner and of the shared plans for their lives together and their future family. The law allows women in that situation to use the stored sperm or embryo to have a child, provided the father has consented to that. Despite having a child that they both wanted, he cannot be recorded as the child's father on the birth certificate. If the embryo had been implanted before his death, his name could have been on the birth certificate. If they had conceived the child in the normal way before he died, his name could go on the birth certificate. In the specific circumstances that I have described—and despite that man being intentionally the father of the child—he is not recognised on the birth certificate because, effectively, of the date on which he died.

I thought I heard the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) refer to whether the treatment had been carried out in the UK or not, or at a licensed facility or not. Does the Bill seek to make any distinction as to where the treatment may have been carried out? Are there circumstances in which that would invalidate the provisions of the Bill?

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I understand it, the Bill would apply to treatment in a UK licensed clinic only for those families who have used donor sperm, rather than the sperm of the father. If that is incorrect, I will happily write to the right hon. Gentleman.

The reference to clinics in the UK would be of relevance only to the final category where, as my hon. Friend rightly said, donor sperm is used and the couple are not married. It is only in that last category that we sought, rightly, for treatment to be carried out in the UK.

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification.

We should be clear that the Bill will not allow the child succession or inheritance rights. The reason for that is that the child could be born many years after the father's death. If those rights were granted, it would be impossible to wind up the father's estate until all the sperm or embryos had been used or destroyed. Clearly, that is impractical.

The Government set out our intention to go further than the McLean report and the Bill does that. The problem with the recommendation in the McLean report is that it is not retrospective. It would have applied only to new families facing such difficult circumstances, not to those who have already experienced them and who are now bringing up children whose fathers have died.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South has described the case of Diane Blood. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) has raised in the House the case of her constituent, Marion Jordan, and has campaigned on the issue. The Government felt that it would be wrong not to extend provisions, under the Bill or in similar legislation, to include families who have already experienced so much and who have campaigned so hard for changes to be made. It is unusual to make laws retrospective in this way, and the Government have given the issue great consideration, but we think that it is the right thing to do in the circumstances. That is why the Government are supporting the Bill.

It is true that many of the measures made possible under the Bill will have a symbolic value, but it is an extremely important symbolic value, particularly to the families involved. I join my hon. Friends in paying tribute to the mothers who have campaigned for this Bill for so long on behalf of their children.

The Bill is about more than the circumstances of one or two families who are affected. The law might be out of kilter with international conventions which we have signed. The UK might be in breach of United Nations conventions on human rights and on the rights of the child, so it is incumbent on the House to tighten up legislation on this important issue.

My hon. Friend is right that concerns have been raised about the compatibility of the law in this area with European conventions. However, it is also simply the right thing to do to support the Bill, and that is why the Government are doing so. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House. As it is in the interests of families and of children being brought up today, I hope that it receives cross-party support.

It is obvious that the Bill deals with a difficult area, not least because it reflects all too well the extent to which it is incumbent on us to try to ensure that developments in the law keep pace, where appropriate, with developments in technology. It is entirely owing to the fact that medical technology has advanced as it has over the past few years that we are faced with this problem.

Fortunately for us, the Bill does not deal with the ethical and other considerations that surround the techniques involved. They are entirely separate. However, it is worth remembering that the techniques that allow the process to take place and so put people in this position are not without an ethical dimension.

I am not sure that I fully understand why this need be so, but great care is taken to distinguish between those who are married and those who are not. The modernisers among us—I am not one for this or indeed, most other purposes—constantly try to establish that marriage is becoming less and less important and that partnerships and long-term relationships matter more and more. Intriguingly, in operating in a difficult and sensitive area, the Bill goes to extraordinary lengths to make such a distinction, which I find reassuring even though I am not entirely clear about the reason why. That is even more true of the distinction that apparently must be made about whether the treatment took place in UK-licensed premises. The question of whether there are any UK-licensed clinics outside the UK might be relevant.

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's interest, and the matters that he raises are important, but the Bill simply mirrors provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. We are dealing with a minor issue: the right of children to have their deceased fathers recognise I on their birth certificates, as fathers who are still living can be under the 1990 Act. I see the point of his technical questions, but does he accept that they are not relevant to the Bill?

I do not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to be helpful, but we have already had this discussion once today, in the context of an earlier Bill. It is not good enough to say that because a provision already exists, and has existed for a long time, a similar measure can be nodded through, especially when we are operating in an environment of rapidly changing technology and circumstances. He suggests that because a provision has been in statute law since 1990, we need not pay close attention to it; the reason for the Bill, however, is the rapid march of technology. Are not those two facts slightly at odds?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but I do not accept the basis on which he offered it. He seems to be saying, "Don't worry, folks. It's been around for a while, so it's almost certainly OK".

Surely the whole point of the opportunity that the Bill gives us to revise the law is that it allows us to consider whether any other matters need to be dealt with. That is verified by the lengths to which it goes in amending earlier legislation. The schedule, entitled "Consequential amendments", requires consideration to be given to the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 and the Adoption Act 1976, among others.

The issue may be relatively narrow, and the Bill's intent may, as the hon. Gentleman claimed, be simple. By the standard of many private Members' Bills, however, it is lengthy and detailed. That, and the fact that the schedule seeks to amend consequentially a number of other statutes, suggest that there are ramifications that we nod through at our peril.

I concede that in many cases of this kind the principle, or the specifics, that gave rise to the Bill concerned make it, in one sense, relatively uncontroversial; but the consequences may not be uncontroversial. This Bill has ethical and other dimensions that, in my view, require close consideration—not least the element of retrospection that is explicitly included.

We are talking about unusual circumstances, including the circumstances of those whose lives the Bill seeks to improve. Perhaps, in that context, the element of retrospection is inevitable and desirable, but I am always nervous when Bills contain a retrospective element. When I studied politics at university nearly 40 years ago, I was told that changes in the law should never be retrospective: that was the doctrine on which I was brought up. When I arrived in this place, as recently as 1983, that was still the prevailing philosophy in matters of legislation. I now find that—rather surreptitiously, if I may say so—more and more elements are being introduced into legislation in a way that I, for one, consider undesirable.

Surely retrospection is the right course in this instance, because written consent will definitely have been given. My constituent Marion Jordan and her husband wanted children, and had planned to have them. Her husband died of cancer before they could have them, but he had consented. The child is his, but he cannot be registered on the birth certificate. Retrospection must be right when consent has been given.

Consent may well legitimise retrospectivity in that case, but it does not necessarily legitimise it in the absolute sense that the hon. Lady suggests. I do not agree with the proposition that I think she is making that it is acceptable in every case.

Given the Bill's unusual and relatively narrow confines and the circumstances with which it and the case that the hon. Lady described deal, I may be able to accept that retrospection is justified. However, I am trying to lay down my own ground rule that states that retrospection has to be justified fully in every case and not introduced as a much more general proposition. Her response has helped greatly in that. The elements of the Bill that would usually cause me unease might be much more justified in this case than in many others.

I notice that there is a retrospectivity cut-off date of 1 August 1991. Limiting retrospection is an interesting idea, but I have no doubt that there is a very good reason for it.

The date was chosen simply because that was the date on which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 came into force.

Again, that does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. It may well be that, in some cases, a specific retrospection date should be determined in relation to, for example, a technology or the nature of a consent. However, in this case, I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments.

I hope that the Bill is as simple and limited in scope as the promoter has suggested. In this case, I shall overlook the fact that it has the Government's fingerprints all over it—although I usually take a dim view of the Government trying to sneak Bills through in the guise of private Members' Bills. However, perhaps there should be exceptions to every rule, and it may well be that this is one of them. All I am saying is, do not think that it has not been noticed.

Consideration of the Bill in Committee will allow hon. Members to scrutinise it much more closely. It will also require further scrutiny on Report. At this stage, however, accepting what the promoter and the Minister have said about the Bill, and in view of the circumstances of the families it seeks to help, I see no reason why it should not be read a Second time.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his brevity and kind wishes for the Bill's passage. I am sure that the issues that he raised will be addressed in Committee.

I am grateful also to the Minister—as I know that the families, who are in the Gallery, will be—for saying that the Bill has the Government's full support. I ask her to join me and do everything in her power to ensure that the Bill is passed in this Parliament. The families have had an extraordinarily long wait for justice. Their children are in the Gallery today, although they will probably have no reason to remember today other than as a day out in London and a visit to a strange old building that my daughter describes as an old church.

Perhaps one day in the future, those children and others like them will look back on a day when legislation was debated that made it possible for their rightful father to be recognised on their birth certificate. It is for those children, both born and unborn, that I promote this Bill. I thank the Minister for her comments.

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

I am grateful for the opportunity at least to talk briefly about the Bill. Drug dealing is a pernicious evil that destroys the health and hopes of thousands of our young people. Daily, I read of tragic tales of what drug dealing has done to families and communities across the United Kingdom. That tragedy is exacerbated by the fact that those who deal in that deadly trade flaunt their wealth and power in the very communities that they are destroying. Many millions of pounds of drug money is successfully laundered into respectable businesses, property and investments. It is also used to buy high-value goods. In all those transactions, those who work in financial services and related professions of in commerce are unwittingly handling the proceeds of crime.

For about 12 years, we have had legislation designed to help confiscate the assets of crime, particularly drug trafficking, but it is ineffective. It was designed to provide a punishment, to deny criminals access to the funds that they need to continue their criminal activities, to deter others by showing that crime does not pay and to take criminal money out of circulation. Its effectiveness has been assessed recently, both in the report of the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit published in June 2000 and in Scotland by the report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, entitled, "Making Crime Pay: Confiscation of Criminal Assets in Scotland" published last year in response to a request by the Scottish Deputy Minister for Justice.

The former report, which was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in late 1999, concluded that criminals and their associates can often retain the gains that they make from their criminal activity even when they have been convicted and imprisoned.

The latter report contains statistical evidence for Scotland that shows just how unsuccessful the current legislation and its implementation is in taking criminal money out of circulation.

I know that I am not telling the Minister anything that he does not know already or that is not already documented in the PIU report. I am aware of the proposal in the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill, which is a major initiative to deal with some of the problems that arise from the status quo.

I do not propose to go into all the reasons why the present legislation is considered deficient, but the proposal in this Bill for the establishment of a register of drug trafficking offenders is a practical addition to that set of tools. It would amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by inserting a new section that deals with the establishment of the register and its maintenance and sets out the circumstances in which the register may be consulted and by whom.

The Bill is designed to target money laundering and to assist existing legislation in seizing the proceeds of drug dealing. Its principal purpose is to help the Government and the devolved Administrations, the police and the business sector to share important information to help them work together in a concerted way to tackle and disrupt the supply of illegal drugs.

Since the Bill was presented to the House on 26 February, it has attracted support from surprising corners, but I shall not go into that now.

The proposed new section of the 1971 Act is divided into four subsections. Subsection (1) sets out the offences for which the punishment of recording the fact of conviction on a register may be imposed. The offences set out are those that are generally described as drug trafficking offences. They are all very serious offences and can attract significant periods of imprisonment on conviction, up to life imprisonment. Subsection (1) also allows the court to order the recording of the conviction on a register to be established and maintained by the Secretary of State.

Subsection (2) describes the persons who may consult that register and the circumstances in which they may do so. It draws heavily on the provisions of the money laundering legislation and it is designed to provide to people in commerce or in financial services an opportunity for convenient and quick access to information about those who present them with substantial amounts of money where there is no clear legitimate source of such wealth.

Subsection (3) requires the Secretary of State to lay regulations of an incidental nature and relating to any fee for access before Parliament within three months of the Bill being enacted.

Subsection (4) limits the type of offenders to which the Bill's provisions relate. As I have explained previously, it is only a register of serious drug dealers. By limiting it to them, those who deal for commercial gain and who have a track record that suggests that they will continue to do so in the future, the proposals in the Bill are a proportionate response to the threat to human rights posed by crime and criminality and are no more draconian than is necessary.

By preventing criminals from profiting from crime, we create a powerful deterrent to criminality. I am grateful for the support that this modest proposal has generated. I await with interest any further comments and I commend the Bill to the House.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) has invited further comments, which are appropriate when we have only six minutes to do justice to a Bill with such ramifications.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Debate to be resumed what day?

Friday 6 April.

Object.

Debate to be resumed what day?

Friday 30 March.

Did the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have the permission of the Member in charge of the Bill to move that debate on it be resumed on Friday next?

Yes, but I do not believe that it is necessary.

I am afraid that I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is indeed a requirement.

Well, I do have permission.

That is fine.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

Object.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that I had the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) to move that debate to on the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill be resumed on 6 April?

Those comments will be noted.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the important matter of access to criminal records for universities seeking to recruit lecturing staff. I have been pursuing the issue with Ministers as a result of a disturbing chain of events that took place at the Lincoln campus of the university of Lincolnshire and Humberside. My constituents and I take great pride in the many achievements of the staff and students and in all that the university contributes to our city as an integral part of the community.

The university in Lincoln regrettably came into the national spotlight last year in connection with the case of Russell Griffiths, a former lecturer who, following acquittal on a charge of raping a student, pleaded guilty to, and went to prison for, obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception. He had lied about his previous criminal convictions to get a lecturer's post and it transpired that he had unspent convictions, all relating to ex-girlfriends on whom he had inflicted threats to kill, criminal damage and obscene material.

I am sure that the House would agree, knowing what we now know, that Griffiths would not have been a suitable person to appoint to the trusted post of lecturer, a job that is performed with much professionalism and skill in universities and colleges across the country. It is important that we record our trust in the overwhelming majority of lecturers who do a first-rate job on our behalf. However, such a case must not be allowed to happen again. I am anxious that confidence among staff, employers and students is re-established and maintained.

I speak with the backing not only of my constituents, but of Universities UK, the national body that represents vice-chancellors, and the National Union of Students, which has joined forces with university staff to form CAMPUS-the Campaign for the Protection of University Students. To speak with one voice is a powerful and representative position from which to present the case to Parliament. I hope that the Minister will take account of the unanimous views on the matter.

I pay tribute to the leadership and clarity shown by key players at the university of Lincolnshire and Humberside, including Professor David Chiddick, the vice-chancellor, Verity Coyle, president of the students union, and Debbie Wilson, a senior lecturer. They have my appreciation and admiration for the way in which they have worked to look positively and constructively to the future and have brought their important colleagues on board.

I am pleased that the university in Lincoln has taken some important steps by strengthening its short-listing and interviewing procedures, including checks on references by telephone rather than relying on letters. However, the authorities are limited by legislative provision that prevents them from obtaining the level of checks on criminal records that they want. They eagerly await the establishment and operation of the Criminal Records Bureau, which will assist them greatly to vet prospective employees.

The establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau by the Home Office will improve access to criminal records and record checks for employment-related and voluntary appointment purposes. In particular, it will provide protection for children and others against those who may wish to harm them. I welcome the fact that the Government accept that the arrangements for access to criminal record checks are unsatisfactory. By setting up a single national contact point, they are helping us to bridge the gap.

I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you, like me, remember being 18 and being convinced that you knew everything and the world was out there waiting for you. Perhaps you did, and perhaps it was. I would not want to remove that quality, but at 18, only a few months—or, indeed, a few weeks—mark the divide between being legally regarded as a child and living at home and being a legal adult who is in a new environment with full responsibility for one's daily life, decisions and actions. We should support students in their new world of university by making it a place where they can learn and grow, both academically and personally, without fear of those whom they should be able to trust to guide and support them.

Professor David Chiddick wrote to me saying:

"I believe we have a duty of care to our students, even though they are legally adults, given the special circumstances and the unique relationship that exists between a lecturer and a student."

I agree wholeheartedly. A lecturer is in a position of trust, responsibility and, indeed, power, and should not be permitted to take advantage of that.

Moreover, as the Government press ahead to widen access and participation in university education—something I very much endorse—the increasing number and range of background, age and experience mean that, as with any section of the population, the range of ability to deal with life's challenges will also widen and vary. Whether a student is more or less vulnerable is simply not the issue, as many students are more than capable of looking after themselves. It is the nature of the relationship between the student and the lecturer that we need to consider.

Of course, perfectly sound, morally acceptable and defensible relationships do exist between lecturers and students, as consenting adults. That is not the area of concern to which I refer. However, we need to bear it in mind that lecturers do not work only with young adults. At Lincoln, for example, a children's university for 12 to 16-year-olds regularly takes place, as do visits of school groups, which is very much to be encouraged. It also provides a venue for the Co-operative Kids Club. Such events enable lecturers to work, unsupervised, with those under 18.

I urge the Minister to work closely with the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that guidance and instruction is issued to universities on requiring a basic disclosure document, from the criminal records bureau, as a condition of employment. That would enable a full check to be made on unspent convictions. I should like to go one step further by asking the Minister to review the exceptions order in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and include university lecturers. They, like teachers, traffic wardens and probation officers would then be required to declare spent convictions according to the Criminal Records Bureau standard level of disclosure.

I quite understand and endorse the purpose of the 1974 Act—to allow ex-offenders to wipe the slate clean and start afresh. Equally, there are some occupations for which I believe that that is not appropriate, which is recognised by the exemptions that have been made. I also appreciate that there is a delicate balance to be struck between giving ex-offenders the chance to contribute fully to society once again—and having a job is one of the best ways to include rather than exclude people—and ensuring the protection of those they work with, where appropriate.

The nature of the job of lecturer with its attendant responsibilities and requirements, needs careful consideration. I am in no doubt that if the case of Russell Griffiths is to have a positive outcome and scars are to be healed at the university in Lincoln, we must ensure, as far as possible, that such a case cannot happen again. We need to move that bit further to restore full confidence between students and staff and among each other.

I hope that this case, which sent shock waves throughout the Lincoln campus, will not have happened in vain. I thank the Government, particularly the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who has been most helpful with this case, for the progress that has been made so far in establishing the Criminal Records Bureau. That is a responsive measure, and will prove highly effective. However, I ask that the Minister seriously consider the request that I have made, on behalf of my constituents, for the benefit of the university community and their friends and families across the country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) for raising these issues. Clearly, the case of Russell Griffiths is very disturbing. It gives rise to an important issue of principle—I shall come to that in a moment—but it is essential that the issue is seen in its wider context. I should therefore like to begin by setting out the background in relation to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974—a key consideration in this matter—the current arrangements for police checks, and the new arrangements that we are putting in place through the Criminal Records Bureau. They are due to come into effect during the latter part of this year and the start of next year.

It has long been accepted that it is important for those who offend to be able to reform, to pick up their lives again after paying the penalty, and to have a fresh start. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 has been the key legislation in that respect for more than a quarter of a century, and it will continue to be so under the new arrangements that the Criminal. Records Bureau will operate, to which I shall come shortly.

The principle underlying the 1974 Act is that once a conviction has become spent it is stale, and a person applying for a job should not need to declare it to an employer. However, the need for rehabilitation must be balanced against the risk to society, particularly its most vulnerable members, from the ex-offender. That is why, for as long as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has been in place, there has also been a list of positions for which someone can be asked about spent convictions. People asked about spent convictions have to tell a potential employer what those convictions were for before obtaining the job.

It is crucial to get that list of positions right. We must protect the vulnerable, but we must not make the list such that an offender who has put his past behind him is disadvantaged if that is not necessary for the demands of the job.

Employers do not currently have access to police checks. If they ask a job applicant whether he has a criminal record, they have no way of verifying what they are told. That situation is partly a reflection of the sensitivity with which we treat information about a person's criminal record. However, there are also police resource constraints.

Prioritisation has been essential. The largest demand is for checks to be carried out in cases to which we would all give the highest priority—the protection of children from those who are in the strongest position to do them harm, such as those in positions affording substantial unsupervised access to children.

Most people working with children in the statutory, voluntary and private sectors are not routinely subject to police checks, and nor are people working with vulnerable adults. Frankly, the situation regarding checks on people working with children and vulnerable adults and the resourcing constraints of the police is not satisfactory.

The establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau is a major part of a much larger package of measures designed to provide additional protection for the vulnerable. Moreover, the CRB will be specifically resourced to undertake the task, and to do so to high service standards. Although protection of the vulnerable will be the primary purpose of the CRB, its service will be broader. The bureau will provide three different levels of certificates—or disclosures, as they will be known: the basic level of check will apply to the broad generality of jobs, and the other two types will relate to posts, positions and professions that attract greater sensitivity. The key gateway will be the exceptions order under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The higher level checks will include people working with children and with vulnerable adults. The highest level will relate principally to those working most closely with children and vulnerable adults.

I now come to the particular case that my hon. Friend has raised. Let me say at the outset how disturbing I found this case, just as she did. As I said, we must take great care to ensure that we strike the correct balance between protection of the individual—the potential victim—and the rights of a potential employee to be able to live down the misdemeanours of his or her past

We must be conscious of the danger that our reactions to a particular case could lead us to a position that would upset a careful balance. In the case to which my hon. Friend referred, it was possible for information about previous convictions to be concealed. Under the present arrangements, the university authorities did not have access to police information that would have revealed those convictions. The position will be wholly different once the CRB becomes fully operational. Under the arrangements for criminal records checks that the CRB will operate, the authorities could request that a check be carried out at the basic level. That would have revealed the unspent convictions of Russell Griffiths.

I understand that officials from the Department for Education and Employment have met representatives of Universities UK—formerly the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals—to discuss arrangements for criminal record checks. Universities UK is considering issuing guidance on strengthening existing recruitment for university staff. It is likely to emphasise the need to verify qualifications and obtain independent references, and to advise universities to obtain a basic disclosure from the CRB, when available, as part of their recruitment process.

It would be a very large step to contemplate bringing university staff within the scope of the higher level checks that will be available from the CRB. The main practical effect would be to open up to scrutiny any stale conviction that might lie in a person's past, but which, under the tests set in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, should not be revealed unless there are exceptional circumstances. It would also bring to light a caution, reprimand or warning to a young offender. At the very highest level of check conducted by the bureau, it would mean a search of local police records.

Such information is clearly more sensitive, and making it available remains an exceptional measure under the scheme that the CRB will operate. To warrant such disclosure, the circumstances must be such that the interests of protecting the victim would require that the scales be tilted further in that direction. That has clearly been considered justified in order to protect the most vulnerable members of our society—children, and the most vulnerable adults.

In an area where striking the right balance is so important, I do not have a closed mind, but would have to be convinced that we need to tilt the scales by making university staff subject to higher levels of checks from the CRB. We take the view that the basic checks that would be provided by the CRB would be likely to be adequate, but we are willing to listen to any argument made by my hon. Friend or others to suggest that we need to go to a higher level. We shall listen to such arguments, but we remain to be convinced by them.

I have listened with great care to my hon. Friend. She has raised important issues, and the Government will reflect carefully on the strong points that she made. She asked me to review exemptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That will take some time to arrange, but I hope to be able to do it in the summer, and we shall consider her arguments when we do so. 1 cannot prejudge the outcome of that review, and it would require an affirmative resolution of the House if we were to change any of the exemptions. If that becomes necessary, the House will require a further debate at which my hon. Friend could comment further.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising an important issue. I hope that we can respond in a way that ensures that the sort of problems that arose in the case of Russell Griffiths will be prevented from causing distress to universities and students in future.